A Delhi court has upheld criminal proceedings for cheating and criminal conspiracy against real estate developer M3M India Pvt Ltd, as well as its promoters Basant Bansal, Roop Kumar Bansal, Pankaj Bansal, and others. According to reports from Livemint, Principal District and Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna dismissed revision petitions that challenged the trial court's decision to take cognisance of offences under IPC Sections 420 (cheating), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), and 34 (common intention). In an October 17 order, the court stated that the impugned order should not be interfered with as both parties are at liberty to raise submissions before the court of magistrate during the charge framing proceedings.
The case stems from a complaint filed by MGF Developments Ltd, which alleged that M3M and its group companies obtained rights over approximately 31 acres of land in Chauma village, Gurugram, without paying the full consideration agreed upon under a land exchange arrangement. As reported by Livemint, the transaction was finalised in November 2016, with the Chauma land to be exchanged for a parcel of land in Mohammadpur Gujar village in Sohna, Gurugram, along with a payment of ₹114 crore. Of this amount, approximately ₹16.30 crore was paid upfront, while post-dated cheques worth ₹98 crore were issued towards the outstanding consideration.
According to the chargesheet, the accused companies subsequently secured the mutation of portions of the disputed land in their names and applied for licences to develop residential projects despite the outstanding payment. According to Livemint, the prosecution alleged that the cheques were replaced twice but were eventually returned unpaid on March 28, 2018, after stop-payment instructions were issued. MGF alleged that the accused had made assurances regarding payment that were not honoured, resulting in the transfer of land rights without receipt of the agreed consideration.
The court set aside the cognisance of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the IPC, noting that its essential ingredients were not established. As reported by Livemint, the court stated that the impugned order dated January 31, 2026 taking cognisance under Section 406 IPC is not sustainable in law as the elements of the offence of breach of trust are not made out. The accused must appear before the chief judicial magistrate on October 27, with the trial court instructed to proceed expeditiously.
Challenging the trial court's January 31 order, the accused argued that MGF lacked the legal standing to lodge the complaint and that the dispute arose from contractual obligations, making it essentially civil in nature. According to Livemint, they also contended that the land exchange deeds had been executed by separate land-owning companies and that the outstanding amount had subsequently been deposited in court. The court observed that the accused had raised questions concerning the complainant's standing and the civil nature of the dispute, but held that these issues required consideration by the magistrate at the appropriate stage during charge framing proceedings.
