A Delhi court has upheld charges of cheating and criminal conspiracy against M3M India Pvt. Ltd. and its promoters, Basant Bansal, Roop Kumar Bansal, and Pankaj Bansal. Principal District and Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna dismissed revision petitions that contested the trial court's previous decision in a ₹450-crore land fraud case.
The case stems from allegations by MGF Developments Ltd. that M3M and its affiliates gained rights to about 31 acres in Chauma village, Gurugram, without fulfilling financial obligations outlined in a land exchange agreement. The court has now instructed the trial court to expedite proceedings under IPC Sections 420, 120-B, and 34. The accused must appear in front of the Chief Judicial Magistrate on October 27.
On October 17, the court stated, "The impugned order to the extent that it has taken cognisance of cheating under Sections 420/120/34 IPC should not be interfered with at this stage as both the parties are at liberty to raise their submissions before the court of magistrate at time of hearing on the issue of charge." The court, however, dismissed the charge of criminal breach of trust under IPC Section 406, citing insufficient evidence for that particular charge.
The land deal was finalized in November 2016. It involved exchanging the Chauma property for land in Mohammadpur Gujar village, Sohna, Gurugram, and a ₹114 crore payment. An initial sum of ₹16.30 crore was paid, and post-dated cheques totaling ₹98 crore were issued for the remaining balance. These cheques were replaced twice but ultimately returned unpaid on March 28, 2018, due to stop-payment instructions.
Prosecutors allege that despite the unpaid balance, the accused companies managed to have portions of the land transferred to their names and even applied for licenses to develop residential projects. The accused argued that MGF lacked the standing to file the complaint, saying the dispute was more civil and contractual in nature. They also claimed that the land exchange deeds were executed by separate land-owning entities and that the outstanding amount had been deposited in court.
MGF's counsel countered these claims by asserting that the accused made false payment assurances and secured land transfers without having sufficient funds to cover the cheques. The court noted that while the accused had raised issues regarding the complainant's standing and the civil nature of the dispute, these arguments should be addressed during the magistrate's hearing on the charges.
The case originated from an FIR filed by the Delhi Police's Economic Offences Wing in 2022, following MGF's complaint. Several related civil proceedings are also ongoing between the parties involved.
