Delhi court upholds cheating proceedings against M3M in Gurugram land dispute

Delhi court order on M3M land dispute

A Delhi sessions court has allowed criminal proceedings for cheating and conspiracy to move forward against real estate developer M3M India, its promoters, and associated firms in connection with a ₹450-crore land exchange transaction in Gurugram.

Principal District and Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna upheld the trial court's order taking cognisance of charges under Indian Penal Code Sections 420 for cheating, 120-B for criminal conspiracy, and 34 for acts done with common intention. However, the court set aside proceedings under Section 406 for criminal breach of trust, finding that the legal elements required for breach of trust were not established.

The court directed all parties, including M3M promoters Basant Bansal, Roop Kumar Bansal, and Pankaj Bansal, to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Tis Hazari Courts on October 27. The magistrate has been instructed to proceed expeditiously with the matter.

Land exchange details and monetary claims

The criminal proceedings stem from a 2022 complaint lodged by MGF Developments Ltd with the Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police. The dispute centres on a November 2016 deal involving the exchange of roughly 31 acres of land in Chauma village, Gurugram, for a property parcel in Mohammadpur Gujar village in Sohna, along with a monetary balance of ₹114 crore.

Prosecution filings state that while ₹16.30 crore was paid upfront, post-dated cheques amounting to ₹98 crore were issued for the remaining sum. Those cheques were replaced twice but ultimately returned unpaid in March 2018 following stop-payment instructions. MGF Developments alleged that the accused entities subsequently obtained land mutations in their names and applied for residential project development licences without completing agreed payments.

Judicial reasoning and scope of revision

In her order dated October 17, Judge Chandna noted that while cheating allegations warrant examination during the stage of framing charges, criminal breach of trust requires an initial entrustment of property that was lacking in a formal land sale and exchange agreement.

The court referenced Supreme Court precedent in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd v. State of Uttar Pradesh to highlight the distinct legal benchmarks separating cheating from criminal breach of trust. The judge stated that arguments raised by the defence regarding contractual obligations, civil litigation, and the complainant's standing must be evaluated by the magistrate when considering charge framing or discharge applications, rather than at the revisional stage.

Legal representation for M3M included Senior Advocate Jagdeep Sharma and Advocates Vijay Aggarwal, Siddharth Bhardwaj, and Sarthak Anand. MGF Developments was represented by Senior Advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir alongside Advocates Yudhister Singh, Prabhav Ralli, Yash Datt, Mohsin Khan, Deeya Mittal, and Dev Vrat Arya.