More Stories

Informist, Wednesday, Sept. 9, 2026

 

--HC rejects Supertech top officers plea to quash cheating case by homebuyers 

 

NEW DELHI – The Delhi High Court has rejected petitions by Ram Kishor Arora, the chairman and managing director of Supertech Ltd. and other top officers, seeking quashing of criminal case against them on homebuyers' allegations of cheating, diversion of funds, discontinuance of payment of the pre-equated monthly instalment, and not delivering the flats at the stipulated time. The high court upheld the trial court's 2025 order to take cognizance of the of charges of Sections 406, 420, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against Supertech's top officers and issuance of summons to them.

 

The prosecution's case was, therefore, not based merely upon the assertion that possession was delayed by the company and its top officers, said the court. It was also based upon the manner in which the transactions were allegedly structured, the representations made to the homebuyers, the continued collection of amount and the subsequent alleged failure to fulfil the commitment forming the basis of the subvention arrangement, said the court. Whether these circumstances ultimately establish dishonest intention from the very beginning is a matter which can only be determined after the evidence is led, it said.

 

At this stage, however, the 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, said Justice Madhu Jain. 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, said Justice Jain. 

 

The existence of a criminal conspiracy is ordinarily a matter which is required to be inferred from the conduct of the parties and the circumstances brought on record, said the court. Direct evidence of an agreement is seldom available, it said. 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 in the high court, it added. 

 

The high court said that it is not required 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 trial court is not expected to conduct a mini-trial or record detailed findings on the guilt or innocence of each accused, it said. The requirement is that the trial court must apply its mind to the material and form a prima facie opinion that sufficient grounds exist for proceeding, it said. 

 

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, it said. These are matters which cannot appropriately be decided by conducting a detailed appreciation of evidence at the stage of considering a petition for quashing the case, it added.

 

The case has its genesis from a complaint made by a homebuyer Ajay Kumar Gupta in relation to the alleged non-delivery of flats booked in a real estate project developed by Supertech. During the course of investigation, several other homebuyers also joined the investigation and made similar allegations against the company and its top officers. 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 subvention scheme. 

 

The homebuyers alleged that Supertech 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. However, despite the representations made at the time of booking, possession of the respective flats was not delivered within the stipulated period, they said. Supertech 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, said the homebuyers. 

 

The complainants further alleged a substantial amount 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 by the company. Thereafter, the investigating agency filed a charge-sheet in 2024 before a chief judicial magistrate in New Delhi. The chargesheet attributed 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.  End

 

Reported by Surya Tripathi

Edited by Akul Nishant Akhoury

 

For users of real-time market data terminals, Informist news is available exclusively on the NSE Cogencis WorkStation.

 

Cogencis news is now Informist news. This follows the acquisition of Cogencis Information Services Ltd. by NSE Data & Analytics Ltd., a 100% subsidiary of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. As a part of the transaction, the news department of Cogencis has been sold to Informist Media Pvt. Ltd.

 

Informist Media Tel +91 (11) 4220-1000

Send comments to feedback@informistmedia.com

 

© Informist Media Pvt. Ltd. 2026. All rights reserved.