Delhi court keeps cheating case against M3M over Gurugram land exchange alive

A Delhi sessions court has declined to interfere with criminal proceedings for cheating and criminal conspiracy against M3M India Pvt Ltd, its subsidiary companies and several individuals over a land dispute in Gurugram. The order, dated 17 October 2026 and reported on 25 October 2026, was passed by Principal District and Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna while disposing of two revision petitions. A revision petition is a challenge to an order of a lower court, here the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order of 31 January 2026.

The magistrate had taken cognisance of the offences on the basis of a police chargesheet. Taking cognisance means the court has accepted the case and decided there are grounds to proceed. The sessions court upheld cognisance for cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and for criminal conspiracy and common intention under Sections 120B and 34. It set aside cognisance for criminal breach of trust under Section 406, holding that the essential ingredients of that offence were not made out.

What the case concerns

The complaint was filed by MGF Developments Ltd, and led to an FIR registered by the Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police in 2022. The case is about a land exchange agreement finalised in November 2016. As the prosecution puts it, about 31 acres at Chauma village in Gurugram, in Sector 113, were to be exchanged for a parcel in Mohammadpur Gujar village in Sohna, along with a monetary settlement of ₹114 crore.

According to the police chargesheet, the accused paid about ₹16.30 crore upfront and handed over post-dated cheques of roughly ₹98 crore for the balance. The cheques were returned unpaid on 28 March 2018 because of stop-payment instructions. The prosecution also alleges that portions of the land were mutated in the companies' names despite the unpaid balance. These are allegations and have not been tested at trial.

The accused argued that the dispute is primarily civil and commercial, challenged MGF's standing to bring the complaint, and said the exchange deeds were executed between landowners and M3M entities. They also said the outstanding amount was later deposited in court. The court said these were important points in the accused's favour, but that they should be considered when the magistrate hears both sides on framing of charges or discharge.

Why the breach of trust charge was set aside

Criminal breach of trust requires that property was entrusted to a person, or that they had dominion over it, and that it was then dishonestly misappropriated or used in violation of the law or a legal contract. The prosecution's case was that the land was transferred through formal exchange deeds against consideration, not entrusted to the accused. The court found that this element was not established, and set that charge aside.

The court also explained the limits of the magistrate's role at this stage. When taking cognisance, a magistrate only needs to decide whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed. The magistrate does not evaluate the evidence in detail or assess the likelihood of conviction. The order does not find the accused guilty.

What buyers and developers should note

For buyers of property in the Chauma and Sector 113 area, the most relevant point is a separate interim order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. It restrains M3M and MGF from creating third-party rights over the disputed land while MGF's appeal is pending. In practice, this means no party can make a sale, booking, lease or similar dealing on that land until the appeal is decided. Anyone considering a transaction linked to the disputed parcel should confirm its current legal status before proceeding.

The next step is the hearing before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 27 October 2026, where all parties are to appear. The magistrate has been directed to proceed expeditiously under Sections 420, 120B and 34. The accused will then make their submissions on framing of charges or discharge. Until the magistrate rules on those submissions, the case remains at the stage of proceeding to trial, and the pending High Court appeal remains open.