Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi Court, recently, overturned an order of the trial court discharging Gautam Gambhir in a cheating case filed by homebuyers against three real estate firms. The court noted that Gambhir was the only individual from Rudra who directly interacted with investors and thus warranted further investigation, especially given his role as a Member of Parliament (MP). 

Special Judge Vishal Gogne held, “The impugned order reflects inadequate expression of mind in deciding the allegations against Gautam Gambhir. The allegations also merit further investigation into the role of Gautam Gambhir”. 

The real estate companies—Rudra Buildwell Realty, HR Infracity, and UM Architectures and Contractors—were alleged to have failed to deliver apartments promised in a housing project launched in 2011 under the name "Serra Bella." Gambhir, who served as an additional director for Rudra and also endorsed the project as a brand ambassador, was implicated in the case due to his association with the project.

The court also questioned Gambhir’s financial transactions with Rudra, citing a significant sum he paid to the company and a nearly equivalent amount he received in return, without clarification on whether these funds originated from investors.

Further, the court noted that the trial court’s order failed to address the particular allegations against each accused, instead generalizing findings across all defendants. This lack of specific analysis rendered the order a "non-speaking order," which, according to the court, inadequately addressed the legal merits of each individual's case.

The special judge also observed shortcomings in the initial police investigation and recommended further inquiry before framing charges. Recognizing that cheating is categorized as a scheduled offense under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the judge suggested the Enforcement Directorate (ED) examine the case for potential money laundering implications. The court directed the ED to independently evaluate the situation and submit a status report by November 11 but clarified that it was not instructing the agency to file a new case.

In conclusion, the matter was remanded to the trial court to issue a fresh, detailed order, with specific findings regarding each accused. The special judge emphasized that the trial court should mandate additional investigation if necessary to ensure thorough scrutiny at the charge stage.

Case Title: Sandeep Kumar Rawat v State (Criminal Revision No. 26/2023)