A Delhi sessions court has declined to halt criminal proceedings for cheating and criminal conspiracy against Gurugram real estate developer M3M India Pvt. Ltd. and its promoters Basant Bansal, Roop Kumar Bansal and Pankaj Bansal, in what the complainant describes as a ₹450-crore land fraud. The order, passed on October 17 and reported on Sunday, directs the trial court to move quickly and asks the accused to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on October 27.
What the court decided
Principal District and Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna was hearing revision petitions filed by M3M and its promoters against a January 31, 2026 order in which the magistrate had taken cognisance of the offences on the basis of a police chargesheet. The judge left intact the charges under IPC Sections 420 (cheating), 120-B (criminal conspiracy) and 34 (common intention), saying both sides were free to argue their case before the magistrate when the question of framing charges comes up.
The court did, however, partly side with the developer. It set aside cognisance of criminal breach of trust under Section 406, holding that the basic elements of that offence were not made out.
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.
Order of the sessions court, October 17
The land deal behind the case
The case was filed on a complaint by MGF Developments Ltd., which alleges that M3M and its group companies acquired rights over roughly 31 acres in Chauma village, Gurugram, without paying the full price agreed in a land exchange. According to the prosecution, the deal was struck in November 2016: the Chauma land was to be swapped for a parcel in Mohammadpur Gujar village in Sohna, plus a payment of ₹114 crore.
The chargesheet says about ₹16.30 crore was paid at the outset and post-dated cheques worth ₹98 crore were handed over for the balance. Those cheques were replaced twice and finally bounced on March 28, 2018, after stop-payment instructions. The prosecution alleges that the companies then had parts of the land mutated in their names and applied for licences to build residential projects while the money was still outstanding.
The Delhi Police’s Economic Offences Wing registered an FIR on MGF’s complaint in 2022.
M3M’s defence
The developer and its promoters argued that MGF had no standing to file the complaint and that the matter was a purely civil, contractual dispute. They also said the exchange deeds had been signed by separate land-owning companies and that the unpaid amount had since been deposited in court. MGF’s lawyers countered that the accused gave false assurances about payment and secured the land transfer without having the funds to honour the cheques.
The judge said these objections were for the magistrate to weigh at the appropriate stage, noting that evidence cannot be examined in detail when a court is only deciding whether to take cognisance.
What happens next
The promoters are due before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on October 27, when the trial court will take the case forward towards arguments on charges. Several civil cases over the same land and transaction are also pending between the two companies, so the dispute is likely to play out on more than one front. The outcome is being watched closely in Gurugram’s property market, since the prosecution says the disputed land was put forward for residential project licences.
