Delhi court upholds cheating case against M3M, promoters in Rs 450-crore land dispute
A Delhi court has upheld cheating and criminal conspiracy proceedings against M3M India Pvt Ltd and its promoters in an alleged Rs 450-crore land fraud. The case involves a disputed land exchange deal over 31 acres in Gurugram where cheques worth Rs 98 crore were returned unpaid. The accused must ap
A Delhi court has upheld cheating and criminal conspiracy proceedings against M3M India Pvt Ltd, its promoters Basant Bansal, Roop Kumar Bansal and Pankaj Bansal, and others in an alleged Rs 450-crore land fraud case. Principal District and Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna passed the order on 17 Oct while hearing revision petitions challenging the trial court's order taking cognisance of the offences.
The case relates to allegations by MGF Developments Ltd that M3M and its group companies obtained rights over around 31 acres of land in Chauma village in Gurugram without paying the full consideration agreed upon in a land exchange deal. According to the prosecution, the deal was finalised in November 2016 and involved exchanging the Chauma land for a parcel in Mohammadpur Gujar village in Sohna, Gurugram, along with a payment of Rs 114 crore. While around Rs 16.30 crore was paid upfront, post-dated cheques worth Rs 98 crore were issued for the remaining amount. The cheques were replaced twice but were returned unpaid on 28 Mar 2018 following stop-payment instructions, according to the chargesheet.
The prosecution alleged that the accused companies subsequently got portions of the land mutated in their names and applied for licences to develop residential projects despite the outstanding payment. The court upheld the proceedings for cheating and criminal conspiracy under IPC Sections 420, 120-B and 34 and directed the trial court to proceed expeditiously. The accused have been directed to appear before the chief judicial magistrate on 27 Oct.
However, the court set aside the cognisance of the offence of criminal breach of trust under IPC Section 406, holding that its ingredients were not made out. In its 17 Oct order, the court said the impugned order to the extent that it took cognisance of cheating under Sections 420/120/34 IPC should not be interfered with at this stage, as both parties are at liberty to raise their submissions before the magistrate at the time of hearing on the issue of charge.
Challenging the trial court's 31 Jan order, the accused argued that MGF had no locus standi to lodge the complaint and that the dispute was purely civil and contractual in nature. They also contended that the land exchange deeds were executed by separate land-owning companies and that the outstanding amount had subsequently been deposited in court. Opposing the pleas, MGF's counsel argued that the accused had allegedly made false assurances regarding payment and got the land transferred despite lacking sufficient funds to honour the cheques.
The court observed that the accused had raised issues concerning the complainant's standing and the civil nature of the dispute, but held that these arguments required consideration by the magistrate at the appropriate stage. It said the evidence could not be examined in detail at the stage of taking cognisance and that the accused were at liberty to raise their submissions during the hearing on framing of charges. The case arises from an FIR registered by the Delhi Police's Economic Offences Wing in 2022 on MGF's complaint. Several civil proceedings relating to the land and the transaction are also pending between the parties.
