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, in a ₹450-crore land fraud case. The decision was made by Principal District and Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna, who upheld the trial court's earlier decision.
The allegations stem from a complaint by MGF Developments Ltd., which claims that M3M and its affiliates acquired rights over approximately 31 acres of land in Chauma village, Gurugram, without fulfilling the agreed payment terms in a land exchange deal. The court has directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings under Indian Penal Code Sections 420, 120-B, and 34, and has summoned the accused to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on October 27.
In its October 17 order, the court stated that the trial court's decision to take cognisance of cheating under Sections 420/120/34 IPC should not be interfered with at this stage. Both parties are permitted to present their arguments during the magistrate's hearing on the issue of charges. However, the court overturned the cognisance of criminal breach of trust under IPC Section 406, stating that the necessary elements for this charge were not established.
The land deal, finalized in November 2016, involved exchanging the Chauma land for a parcel in Mohammadpur Gujar village, Sohna, Gurugram, along with a payment of ₹114 crore. While an initial payment of around ₹16.30 crore was made, post-dated cheques amounting to ₹98 crore were issued for the balance. These cheques were replaced twice but were returned unpaid on March 28, 2018, due to stop-payment instructions, according to the chargesheet.
The prosecution alleges that despite the outstanding payment, the accused companies managed to have portions of the land mutated in their names and applied for licenses to develop residential projects. The accused contested the trial court's January 31 order, arguing that MGF lacked the legal standing to file the complaint and that the dispute was purely civil and contractual. They also claimed that the land exchange deeds were executed by separate land-owning companies and that the outstanding amount had been deposited in court.
MGF's counsel countered these arguments, asserting that the accused had made false assurances about the payment and transferred the land without sufficient funds to honor the cheques. The court noted the accused's arguments regarding the complainant's standing and the civil nature of the dispute but emphasized that these issues should be addressed during the magistrate's hearing on the framing of charges.
This case originated from an FIR filed by the Delhi Police's Economic Offences Wing in 2022, following MGF's complaint. Several civil proceedings related to the land and the transaction are also pending between the parties.
