Sangita Arora vs State Of Nct Delhi & Anr.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 19.08.2026
Pronounced on: 08.09.2026
Uploaded on: 08.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010289892026
+ CRL.M.C. 4722/2026 & CRL.M.A. 19828/2026, CRL.M.A.
19829/2026
SANGITA ARORA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Yash Datt and Mr.
Chandra Shekhar Anand, Advs.
versus
STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for State.
# CNR No. DLHC010292642026
+ CRL.M.C. 4723/2026 & CRL.M.A. 19830/2026, CRL.M.A.
19831/2026
MOHIT ARORA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Yash Datt and Mr.
Chandra Shekhar Anand, Advs.
versus
STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for State.
# CNR No. DLHC010289882026
+ CRL.M.C. 4724/2026 & CRL.M.A. 19835/2026, CRL.M.A.
19836/2026
RAM KISHOR ARORA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Yash Datt and Mr.
Chandra Shekhar Anand, Advs.
versus
STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for State.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. Nos. 4722, 4723, 4724/2026 Page 1 of 20
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:55:32
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
JUDGMENT
MADHU JAIN, J.
1. The present batch of three connected petitions arises out of a
common set of facts and challenges the criminal proceedings emanating
from FIR No. 105/2020 , registered at Police Station Economic Offences
Wing. The petitioners have also challenged the common order
dated 30.03.2026, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02,
South-East District, Saket Courts, dismissed their respective criminal
revision petitions and affirmed the order dated 22.03.2025 passed by the
learned Trial Court taking cognizance of the alleged offences and
summoning the accused persons.
2. Since the three petitions arise out of the same FIR, involve
substantially overlapping facts and challenge the same set of proceedings,
they are being heard and disposed of by this common judgment.
BRIEF FACTS:
3. The genesis of the present proceedings lies in a complaint made
by Ajay Kumar Gupta before the Economic Offences Wing in relation to
the alleged non-delivery of flats booked in a real estate project developed
by M/s Supertech Limited. During the course of investigation, several
other homebuyers also joined the investigation and made similar
allegations against the company and its directors.
4. The allegations pertain to a residential project known as “Hill
Town”, situated in Sector-2, Sohna, Haryana. The project was launched in
the year 2014 and the homebuyers had booked flats therein under a
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. Nos. 4722, 4723, 4724/2026 Page 2 of 20
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:55:32
subvention scheme. As per the allegations, the company represented that
the purchasers were required to make an initial payment of 10% of the
sale consideration, whereas the company would bear the pre-EMI liability
for the agreed period until the delivery of possession.
5. According to the complainants, despite the representations made at
the time of booking, possession of the respective flats was not delivered
within the stipulated period. It is further alleged that the company
subsequently discontinued payment of the pre-EMIs, thereby resulting in
the concerned homebuyers becoming liable towards the financial
institutions from whom the loans had been obtained.
6. The complainants further alleged that substantial amounts had been
collected from homebuyers in connection with the project; however, the
project remained incomplete. The allegations also concern the alleged
diversion and utilisation of the funds received in connection with the
project. It is on the basis of these allegations that a complaint
dated 13.06.2019was made before the Economic Offences Wing.
7. Consequently, FIR No. 105/2020 came to be registered
on 18.08.2020 for the offences alleged therein against the company, its
directors and other persons connected with the affairs of the company.
During the course of investigation, the investigating agency examined the
complaints of several other homebuyers who had allegedly faced similar
difficulties in relation to the project.
8. The petitioners, however, dispute the allegations and contend that
the project was affected by several circumstances beyond their control,
including developments in the real estate sector, demonetisation, the
COVID-19 pandemic and other circumstances affecting the construction
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. Nos. 4722, 4723, 4724/2026 Page 3 of 20
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:55:32
and completion of the project. The petitioners also contend that the
company had initially been making payments towards the pre-EMIs of the
homebuyers in accordance with the subvention arrangement.
9. It is further the case of the petitioners that certain settlements were
entered into between the company and some of the homebuyers. The
petitioners had also previously approached this Court in Crl. M.C. No.
8979/2023 seeking quashing of the FIR. The said proceedings, however,
were subsequently withdrawn following the filing of the charge-sheet.
10. Upon completion of investigation, the investigating agency filed a
charge-sheet dated 22.08.2024 before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi. The charge-
sheet alleges, inter alia, the commission of offences under Sections 406,
420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and attributes criminality
to the company and its concerned directors and office bearers in
connection with the representations allegedly made to the homebuyers and
the utilisation of the funds received from them.
11. Thereafter, by order dated 22.03.2025, the learned Trial Court took
cognizance of the offences and issued summons to the accused persons.
The petitioners subsequently appeared before the learned Trial Court
on 17.07.2025.
12. The petitioners thereafter challenged the cognizance and
summoning order before the learned Sessions Court by filing separate
criminal revision petitions. The said revision petitions, being Criminal
Revision Nos. 56/2026, 57/2026 and 58/2026, were heard together. By a
common order dated 30.03.2026, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-
02, South-East District, Saket Courts, dismissed the revision petitions and
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. Nos. 4722, 4723, 4724/2026 Page 4 of 20
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:55:32
declined to interfere with the order taking cognizance and issuing
summons.
13. The petitioners have also raised distinct contentions regarding their
individual roles in the affairs of M/s Supertech Limited. In particular,
petitioner Sangita Arora has contended that, although she was associated
with the company as a Director, she did not have any active role in the
day-to-day affairs of the company or in the management of the project in
question.
14. The other petitioners have similarly sought to challenge the
proceedings by disputing the nature and extent of their respective
involvement in the alleged transactions and contending that the allegations
essentially arise from disputes concerning delay in completion of the
project and delivery of possession to the homebuyers.
15. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.03.2025 passed by the learned
Trial Court taking cognizance and summoning the accused persons, as
well as the common revisional order dated 30.03.2026 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, South-East District, Saket Courts,
dismissing their respective criminal revision petitions, the present
petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present connected
petitions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, seeking quashing of the impugned orders and the consequential
criminal proceedings.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
16. Learned counsel submits that the scope of revisional jurisdiction
requires the Revisional Court to independently examine whether the order
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. Nos. 4722, 4723, 4724/2026 Page 5 of 20
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:55:32
under challenge suffers from any patent error, jurisdictional defect,
illegality or perversity. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander,
(2012) 9 SCC 460 , wherein the scope of revisional jurisdiction and the
duty of the Revisional Court to examine the legality, correctness and
propriety of an order have been explained. It is contended that the
impugned revisional order does not reflect an independent consideration
of the specific objections raised by the petitioner and, therefore, warrants
interference.
17. It is further submitted that the petitioner had no direct involvement
in the alleged transactions forming the subject matter of the FIR.
According to the petitioner, she is essentially a homemaker and had no
active participation in the day-to-day affairs, management or financial
transactions of the company. It is submitted that she was inducted as a
Director primarily because of her marital relationship with one of the
promoters/directors of the company and not on account of any active
managerial or operational role.
18. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner does not possess any
particular technical or professional expertise in the real estate business
and that the mere fact that she held the position of Director cannot, by
itself, result in the fastening of criminal liability upon her. It is argued that
neither the chargesheet nor the material relied upon by the prosecution
attributes any specific act, decision or role to the petitioner in relation to
the subject project or the transactions forming the subject matter of the
prosecution.
19. It is further contended that criminal jurisprudence does not
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. Nos. 4722, 4723, 4724/2026 Page 6 of 20
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:55:32
recognise automatic vicarious liability of the Directors of a company
unless the statute specifically provides for such liability. Reliance is
placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Sunil Bharti Mittal v.
Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609 , wherein it was held
that where a company is alleged to have committed an offence, its
Directors cannot automatically be made criminally liable in the absence of
a specific statutory provision or material showing their individual role and
involvement.
20. Reliance is also placed upon Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat,
(2008) 5 SCC 668 , to contend that in the absence of specific allegations
and material demonstrating the individual role of a Director, criminal
liability cannot be fastened merely on the basis of the position held by
such person in the company. The petitioner also relies upon the decision
of this Court in Anil Bhalla v. State, Crl.M.C. 2071/2022 , decided on
06.05.2022, wherein the Court considered the absence of any specific
material concerning the individual role of a Director and the requirement
of proper application of mind at the stage of issuance of summons.
21. It is submitted that the petitioner was merely a nominal Director
and did not participate in the day-to-day functioning or management of
the company. According to learned counsel, the petitioner may have
signed certain documents or statutory papers at the instance of the
company or its officials, but such circumstance, without any material
showing conscious participation in the alleged offence, cannot form the
basis for prosecuting her.
22. Learned counsel further submits that the offences under Sections
406, 420 and 120B IPC are not made out against the petitioner. It is
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. Nos. 4722, 4723, 4724/2026 Page 7 of 20
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:55:32
contended that there is no material to show that any property was ever
entrusted to the petitioner or that she exercised dominion over any
property belonging to the complainants so as to attract the ingredients of
the offence under Section 406 IPC.
23. With regard to the allegation under Section 420 IPC, it is submitted
that there is no material demonstrating that the petitioner induced or
deceived any of the complainants or that she possessed a dishonest
intention at the inception of the relevant transactions. Learned counsel
submits that the essential requirement for constituting the offence of
cheating is the existence of fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of
making the representation or inducement. Reliance in this regard is placed
upon Sushil Sethi v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, (2020) 3 SCC 240 ,
and V.Y. Jose v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 3 SCC 78.
24. It is the further submission of the petitioner that the disputes
between the homebuyers and the company arise substantially from alleged
delay in handing over possession and alleged default in fulfilling certain
payment obligations, including the payment of Pre-EMIs. According to
learned counsel, such disputes arise from contractual obligations under the
agreements entered into between the parties and, at the highest, give rise
to civil consequences. It is submitted that a mere breach of contract cannot
automatically be converted into an allegation of cheating in the absence of
material showing dishonest intention from the inception of the transaction.
25. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner had specifically
raised the issue regarding the simultaneous invocation of Sections 406 and
420 IPC. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court
in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. Nos. 4722, 4723, 4724/2026 Page 8 of 20
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:55:32
SCC OnLine SC 2248 , wherein the distinction between the offences of
criminal breach of trust and cheating was discussed. It is submitted that
the two offences operate in different factual circumstances, namely, one
arising out of alleged entrustment followed by dishonest misappropriation
and the other requiring dishonest intention at the inception of the
transaction.
26. It is, therefore, contended that the learned Revisional Court failed to
adequately examine the petitioner's submission that, on the facts alleged,
the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC were not independently
satisfied. Learned counsel further submits that there is no material
indicating any agreement between the petitioner and any other person to
commit an illegal act and, consequently, the ingredients of the offence of
criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B IPC are also absent.
27. It is further argued that the cognizance and summoning order dated
22.03.2025 is cryptic and does not reflect due application of mind to the
specific role allegedly played by the petitioner. It is contended that the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate proceeded on the basis of general
allegations against the company and summoned the petitioner without
identifying any specific material demonstrating her individual
involvement in the alleged offences.
28. Reliance is placed upon Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial
Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 , and Sunil Bharti Mittal (supra), to submit
that summoning a person to face criminal proceedings is a serious judicial
act and cannot be undertaken mechanically. Learned counsel submits that
the summoning order must demonstrate that the Court has applied its
mind to the material on record and has formed a prima facie opinion
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. Nos. 4722, 4723, 4724/2026 Page 9 of 20
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:55:32
regarding the role of the person summoned.
29. It is also submitted that the learned Revisional Court, despite being
specifically apprised of the aforesaid infirmities in the summoning order,
failed to independently scrutinise whether any prima facie material existed
against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the chargesheet and the
accompanying material do not disclose any specific act attributable to her
which would satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences alleged.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:
30. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State opposes the present
petition and submits that the material collected during the course of
investigation discloses a prima facie case against the petitioner and the
other accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420
and 120B IPC.
31. It is submitted that the present FIR was registered on 18.08.2020 at
Police Station EOW on the complaint of one Ajay Kumar Gupta against
M/s Supertech Limited, its Chairperson, Directors and other office
bearers. The allegations pertain to the residential project known as
“HillTown” situated at Sector-02, Sohna, Haryana, which, according to
the prosecution, was launched under a subvention scheme.
32. Learned APP for the State submits that the complainant had alleged
that under the said subvention scheme, he was required to pay only 10%
of the consideration amount until possession of the allotted property was
handed over, while the accused company had undertaken to service the
Pre-EMIs payable to the lending bank until such time. It was also
represented that possession would be handed over within the stipulated
period of approximately 36 months.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. Nos. 4722, 4723, 4724/2026 Page 10 of 20
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:55:32
33. It is submitted that pursuant to the approval of the home loan, an
allotment letter, Memorandum of Understanding and a tripartite
agreement were executed between the concerned bank, the complainant
and the accused company. Thereafter, the complainant allegedly made
payment of Rs.62,62,109/- to the accused company on 07.10.2017.
34. Learned APP submits that the allegation of the complainant was
that the accused company, contrary to the terms of the Memorandum of
Understanding dated 09.05.2015, stopped servicing the Pre-EMIs payable
in respect of the complainant after September 2018 and also discontinued
the construction work relating to the project. According to the
prosecution, these circumstances gave rise to allegations that the
complainant and other homebuyers had been induced to enter into the
transactions on representations which were subsequently not fulfilled.
35. It is further submitted that, during the course of investigation, as
many as 38 complaints concerning the same project and containing
similar allegations were received and were clubbed with the present case.
According to the investigation, the approximate total loss alleged by the
complainants was Rs.22.80 crores. It is stated that the accused persons
furnished documents pertaining to settlements with only 8 victims out of
the 37 victims referred to in the status report.
36. Learned APP for the State submits that the investigation also
included examination of the records obtained from the Registrar of
Companies, as well as the account statements and balance sheets of M/s
Supertech Limited. According to the learned APP, the investigation
revealed that the accused company continued to receive booking amounts
from the homebuyers while the payments of Pre-EMIs under the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. Nos. 4722, 4723, 4724/2026 Page 11 of 20
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:55:32
subvention scheme were allegedly discontinued.
37. With particular reference to the petitioner, learned APP submits that
the investigation revealed that the petitioner, Sangita Arora, had been a
Director of M/s Supertech Limited from 07.12.1995 until her resignation
on 01.09.2018. It is further submitted that she held approximately 34%
shareholding in the company. According to the status report, the petitioner
had filed the balance sheets of the company, attended meetings of the
Board of Directors and was an authorised signatory of the bank account of
the accused company.
38. The learned APP further submits that the investigation revealed that
the petitioner was not merely sought to be prosecuted solely on account of
her designation as a Director. It is the case of the prosecution that the
material collected during investigation indicated her association with the
affairs of the company, including her participation in the Board of
Directors and her role as an authorised signatory. The status report further
states that she was involved in managing the day-to-day affairs of the
company.
39. It is further submitted that the alleged project was launched under
the subvention scheme in January 2015 and the booking of flats had
commenced from 24.01.2014. According to the prosecution, the licence
from the Directorate of Town and Country Planning was obtained
subsequently. It is alleged that, under the assurances extended to the
homebuyers, the accused were required to service the Pre-EMIs and hand
over possession by December 2018, subject to a grace period of six
months. However, according to the status report, the project had not been
completed.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. Nos. 4722, 4723, 4724/2026 Page 12 of 20
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:55:32
40. Learned APP for the State submits that after completion of the
investigation, a chargesheet was filed on 20.09.2024 against M/s
Supertech Limited and its Directors, including the present petitioner,
namely Ram Kishor Arora, Sangita Arora, Mohit Arora, Anil Kumar
Sharma, Vikas Kansal, Pradeep Kumar Goel, Anil Kumar Jain and
Gulshan Lal Khera.
41. It is further submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
South-East District, Saket Courts, took cognizance and summoned the
accused persons, including the petitioner, vide order dated 22.03.2025.
The petitioner thereafter challenged the said order by filing a revision
petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South-East District,
Saket Courts. However, the said challenge was unsuccessful and the
revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 30.03.2026.
42. Learned APP for the State, therefore, submits that the petitioner has
already availed of the remedy of revision against the summoning order
and that the learned Revisional Court, after considering the matter,
declined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Trial Court.
43. It is also submitted that the matter is presently pending before the
learned Trial Court and the next date before the Trial Court, as reflected in
the status report, is 18.11.2026 for miscellaneous proceedings/appearance.
The learned APP submits that the prosecution should be permitted to
proceed in accordance with law and that no case for interference with the
impugned orders is made out in the present petition.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
44. This Court has heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners and learned APP for the State, and has also carefully
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. Nos. 4722, 4723, 4724/2026 Page 13 of 20
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:55:32
considered the material placed on record, including the chargesheet, the
order dated 22.03.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate
and the common revisional order dated 30.03.2026 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge.
45. At the outset, it is necessary to bear in mind the limited nature of
the jurisdiction being exercised by this Court under Section 528 of the
BNSS. This Court is not required, at this stage, to undertake a detailed
examination of the evidence or to determine whether the prosecution will
ultimately be able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court is
only required to see whether the material collected during investigation
discloses a prima facie case and whether the orders under challenge suffer
from any patent illegality, jurisdictional error or manifest perversity. The
defence of the accused and competing versions of the facts cannot
ordinarily be examined as though the Court were conducting a trial.
46. The principal contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that
they cannot be prosecuted merely because they were Directors of the
company. There can be no disagreement with this proposition. The law
does not recognise automatic criminal liability merely on account of a
person's designation as a Director. The judgments relied upon by the
petitioners in Sunil Bharti Mittal (supra) and Maksud Saiyed (supra)
clearly recognise that a Director cannot be proceeded against solely on the
basis of his or her position in a company, in the absence of any material
indicating individual involvement in the alleged offence.
47. However, the above principle cannot be read to mean that every
Director must necessarily be discharged or have the proceedings quashed
merely by asserting that he or she had no role in the day-to-day affairs of
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. Nos. 4722, 4723, 4724/2026 Page 14 of 20
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:55:32
the company. Each case must ultimately depend upon the material
collected during investigation. Where the prosecution has placed material
indicating the participation or involvement of a particular Director in the
affairs relevant to the allegations, the question whether such material is
ultimately sufficient to establish criminal liability must ordinarily be left
to be tested during the trial.
48. In the case of petitioner Sangita Arora, the material relied upon by
the prosecution is not confined merely to her designation as a Director.
According to the status report, she remained a Director of M/s Supertech
Limited from 07.12.1995 until her resignation on 01.09.2018. It is further
the case of the prosecution that she held approximately 34% shareholding
in the company, filed its balance sheets, attended meetings of the Board of
Directors and was also an authorised signatory to the bank account of the
company.
49. The prosecution has further specifically asserted that the petitioner
was involved in the management and day-to-day affairs of the company.
Whether these allegations and the material relied upon in support thereof
will ultimately establish her criminal liability is undoubtedly a matter to
be determined during the course of trial. However, at this stage, it cannot
be said that there is absolutely no material connecting her with the affairs
of the company or that she has been arraigned as an accused solely
because she happened to hold the position of a Director.
50. The decisions in Sunil Bharti Mittal (supra) and Maksud Saiyed
(supra) , therefore, do not assist the petitioner to the extent contended.
Those judgments prohibit the mechanical fastening of criminal liability
upon a Director merely because of the office held by him or her. They do
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. Nos. 4722, 4723, 4724/2026 Page 15 of 20
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:55:32
not prohibit prosecution where the investigating agency has collected
material which, prima facie, connects the individual concerned with the
affairs forming the subject matter of the allegations. Similarly, the
decision in Anil Bhalla v. State (supra) was rendered in the context of the
material available in that particular case. The petitioner cannot seek
quashing as a matter of course by relying upon the general proposition
that designation alone is insufficient, when the prosecution asserts that
there is additional material concerning her role and participation.
51. The next submission of the petitioners is that the dispute is
essentially civil in nature and arises out of alleged delay in completion of
the project and failure to hand over possession within the stipulated
period. There is no dispute about the legal principles laid down in V.Y.
Jose (supra) decisions make it clear that a mere breach of contract cannot,
by itself, give rise to an offence of cheating. The intention to deceive must
be present at the inception of the transaction and a purely contractual
dispute cannot be given a criminal colour merely because one party
subsequently fails to fulfil its obligations.
52. However, the allegations in the present case cannot, at this stage, be
reduced merely to a dispute regarding delayed possession. According to
the prosecution, the project was marketed under a subvention scheme
pursuant to which homebuyers were required to make only a limited
initial contribution and the company undertook to pay the Pre-EMIs until
possession was handed over. The allegations are that substantial amounts
were thereafter received from the homebuyers, the company subsequently
stopped servicing the Pre-EMIs and the project remained incomplete. The
investigation also refers to several other homebuyers making similar
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. Nos. 4722, 4723, 4724/2026 Page 16 of 20
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:55:32
allegations in relation to the same project.
53. The prosecution case is, therefore, not based merely upon the
assertion that possession was delayed. It is also based upon the manner in
which the transactions were allegedly structured, the representations made
to the homebuyers, the continued collection of amounts and the
subsequent alleged failure to fulfil the commitments forming the basis of
the subvention arrangement. Whether these circumstances ultimately
establish dishonest intention from the very beginning is a matter which
can only be determined after the evidence is led. At this stage, however,
this Court cannot hold that the allegations are so plainly and exclusively
civil in nature that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount
to an abuse of process.
54. The judgments relied upon by the petitioners in this regard were
rendered in cases where, upon examination of the allegations, the Courts
found that the necessary ingredients of the criminal offences were absent
and that the dispute was essentially contractual or civil. The said
judgments do not lay down that every transaction arising from a contract
must necessarily be treated as a civil dispute. Where the allegations, taken
at their face value, disclose circumstances which prima facie require
investigation and adjudication in respect of alleged inducement, receipt
and utilisation of funds, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed
merely because the transaction also has a contractual element.
55. The submission regarding the simultaneous invocation of Sections
406 and 420 IPC also does not persuade this Court to interfere at this
stage. It is correct that the offences of criminal breach of trust and
cheating have distinct ingredients. As explained in Delhi Race Club
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. Nos. 4722, 4723, 4724/2026 Page 17 of 20
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:55:32
(1940) Ltd. & Ors (supra) the two offences operate in different factual
situations and the distinction between dishonest inducement and
entrustment followed by dishonest misappropriation cannot be ignored.
56. However, the said judgment does not lay down that a criminal
prosecution must necessarily be quashed at the threshold merely because
the chargesheet invokes both Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The precise
nature of the transaction, the role of each accused and the question
whether the ingredients of either or both offences are ultimately
established are matters which can be examined by the learned Trial Court
in accordance with law. At this stage, the Court is only concerned with
whether the allegations and material collected disclose a prima facie basis
for the proceedings to continue.
57. The petitioners have also contended that the offence of criminal
conspiracy under Section 120B IPC is not made out as there is no direct
material showing any agreement between the accused persons to commit
an illegal act. This submission also cannot be accepted at this stage. The
existence of a conspiracy is ordinarily a matter which is required to be
inferred from the conduct of the parties and the circumstances brought on
record. Direct evidence of an agreement is seldom available. Whether the
material ultimately establishes a meeting of minds between the accused
persons is a matter to be examined upon appreciation of the evidence and
cannot ordinarily be conclusively determined in proceedings under
Section 528 BNSS.
58. The challenge to the cognizance and summoning order on the
ground that it is cryptic also does not merit interference. It is undoubtedly
settled law that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. Nos. 4722, 4723, 4724/2026 Page 18 of 20
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:55:32
matter and the Magistrate is required to apply his mind to the material
placed before him. The decisions in Pepsi Foods Ltd (supra) reiterate this
requirement.
59. At the same time, the decisions do not require that an order taking
cognizance and issuing summons should contain a detailed examination of
every document and every defence which may subsequently be raised by
an accused. At that stage, the Court is not expected to conduct a mini-trial
or record detailed findings on the guilt or innocence of each accused. The
requirement is that the Court must apply its mind to the material and form
a prima facie opinion that sufficient grounds exist for proceeding.
60. In the present case, the chargesheet and the material collected
during investigation were before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial
Court took cognizance of the offences and issued summons to the accused
persons. The petitioners thereafter availed of their statutory remedy of
revision, and the learned Revisional Court, after considering the
challenge, declined to interfere with the cognizance and summoning
order.
61. This Court is also unable to accept the submission that the
revisional order dated 30.03.2026 warrants interference merely because
the petitioners are dissatisfied with the conclusions reached therein. A
revisional court is required to examine the legality, correctness and
propriety of the order under challenge; however, the scope of such
jurisdiction does not permit it to substitute its own view in every case
where another view may also be possible.
62. Having considered the material placed before this Court, it cannot
be said that the impugned orders suffer from any jurisdictional defect,
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. Nos. 4722, 4723, 4724/2026 Page 19 of 20
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:55:32
patent illegality or manifest perversity warranting interference under
Section 528 BNSS. The contentions raised by the petitioners substantially
require an examination of their individual roles, the financial transactions
of the company and the circumstances in which the project remained
incomplete. These are matters which cannot appropriately be decided by
conducting a detailed appreciation of evidence at the stage of considering
a petition for quashing.
CONCLUSION:-
63. This Court finds no ground to exercise its inherent jurisdiction, as
the material on record discloses a prima facie case warranting
continuation of the criminal proceedings. The orders dated 22.03.2025
and 30.03.2026, therefore, call for no interference.
64. Accordingly, the present petitions stand dismissed. Pending
application(s), if any, also stand disposed of and the interim order, if any,
stands vacated.
65. It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the
adjudication of the present petitions and shall not prejudice the
petitioners’ case on merits before the learned Trial Court.
66. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court for
information and necessary compliance.
MADHU JAIN
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 08, 2026/ P
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. Nos. 4722, 4723, 4724/2026 Page 20 of 20
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:55:32