The Court observed since cheating is a scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the matter may be required to be probed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
A Delhi Court recently set aside an order passed by a magistrate court to discharge Indian cricket team coach Gautam Gambhir in a cheating case.
The cheating case was filed by homebuyers against three real estate companies over their failure to deliver possession of flats in a housing protect.
The three companies Rudra Buildwell Realty, HR Infracity and UM Architectures and Contractors had jointly promoted as well as advertised a housing project ‘Serra Bella’ in 2011.
Gambhir, besides being an additional director of Rudra, was also a brand ambassador for the project.
Special judge Vishal Gogne on October 29 said the discharge order passed by the magistrate court reflected an “inadequate expression of mind” in deciding the allegations against Gambhir, who was a Member of Parliament (MP).
The Court opined that the allegations against Gambhir merit further investigation as he was the only one “who in fact did have any direct interface with the investors, in his capacity as brand ambassador.”
It also referred to Gambhir’s role in Rudra and asked whether any amount of the investors’ money had gone to him.
“Though the said accused came to be discharged, the impugned order made no reference to the huge amount of ₹6 crores paid by him to Rudra and the sum of ₹4,85,00,000 received back by him from the company. The charge sheet did not clarify whether the amounts paid back to him by Rudra had any nexus or were sourced from funds received from the investors in the project in question,” the Court said.
It further observed that Gambhir apparently had financial transactions with the company beyond his role as a brand ambassador since he was an additional director of Rudra from June 2011 till October 2013.
“Yet, the impugned order generalised the findings against the named accused (Gautam Gambhir) by combining the findings against him with observations of the court regarding other accused (not named in the complaint),” the Court noted.
Pertinently, the judge also observed that since cheating is a scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the matter may be required to be probed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
The Court was hearing three revision petitions filed against an order passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM/ trial court) of Rouse Avenue court on December 10, 2020.
The case began when the homebuyers found no progress in construction of flat despite booking flats in the project and paying money.
They later learnt that the project was not even approved and Allahabad High Court in 2014 had in fact stayed any sort of business transaction or other activity on the land.
This had led to registration of a cheating case against the accused. However, the trial court in 2020 found a prima facie case only against three persons and two companies. It discharged the rest including Gambhir.
The trial court found that prima facie case was made out against three individuals and two companies – Rudra Buildwell Realty, HR Infracity.
However, it discharged five other accused including Gambhir.
The homebuyers then filed revision petition challenging the order of trial court.
The special judge found that the trial court had failed to discuss the specific evidence available in the chargesheet against the five accused persons who were directed to be charged or against the other five accused who were discharged.
“The combined findings of the Ld. Trial Court regarding all accused who were discharged, therefore suffer from material infirmity in law on account of the lack of nuanced discussion qua each of them,” the Court held.
