M3M Gurugram land case: Delhi court lets cheating and conspiracy proceedings continue

What the court decided

On 17 October 2026, the Principal District and Sessions Judge disposed of two revision petitions. The petitions challenged a 31 January 2026 order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, which had taken cognisance of the offences on the basis of a police chargesheet.

The court upheld cognisance for cheating under Section 420 IPC and for criminal conspiracy and common intention under Sections 120B and 34 IPC. It left the accused free to raise their arguments before the magistrate when charges are considered.

The cognisance for criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC was set aside. The court held that the essential ingredients of that offence were not made out.

Why breach of trust was set aside

The court explained that criminal breach of trust requires entrustment of property, or dominion over it, followed by dishonest misappropriation or use in violation of law or a legal contract. The prosecution's case was that the land had been transferred through formal exchange deeds against consideration, not entrusted to the accused. The court found that position did not fit the offence.

On the defence points, the court said the accused had raised important arguments in their favour. It said the right stage to weigh them is when the magistrate hears both sides on framing charges or discharge.

At the cognisance stage, the magistrate only needs to decide whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed. A detailed evaluation of the evidence or the likelihood of conviction is not required at that point.

Parties and counsel

The revision petitions were filed by M3M India Pvt Ltd, Starcity Realtech Pvt Ltd, Cosmo Probuild Pvt Ltd, Surya Propcorn Pvt Ltd and Neer Builders Pvt Ltd, along with individuals Basant Bansal, Roop Kumar Bansal and Pankaj Bansal.

The revisionists were represented by senior advocate Jagdeep Sharma with advocates Vijay Aggarwal, Siddharth Bhardwaj and Sarthak Anand. MGF Developments was represented by senior advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir with advocates Yudhister Singh, Prabhav Ralli and Yash Datt.

The accused argued that the dispute is primarily civil and commercial. They also challenged MGF's locus standi, and said the exchange deeds were executed between landowners and M3M entities, not by the petitioners themselves. They further said the outstanding amount had later been deposited in court.

The Chauma land and the 2016 exchange

According to the prosecution, the transaction was finalised in November 2016 as a land exchange agreement. Land at Chauma village, Gurugram, was to be exchanged for a parcel in Mohammadpur Gujar village in Sohna, together with a monetary settlement of Rs 114 crore.

The prosecution alleges that the accused paid about Rs 16.30 crore upfront and handed over post-dated cheques totalling roughly Rs 98 crore for the remaining balance. The cheques were replaced twice but were returned unpaid on 28 March 2018 because of stop-payment instructions.

Investigators allege that the companies secured mutation of portions of the land in their names despite the unpaid balance, and then applied for commercial licences to develop residential projects on the Chauma parcel. These are allegations that the court will test at trial. The accused deny the charges.

The Rs 450 crore figure used in media reports describes the alleged fraud. It is not a figure stated in the court order.

Separate appeal and interim restraint

A Punjab and Haryana High Court order restrains M3M and MGF from creating third-party rights over the disputed land while MGF's appeal is pending. Until a final decision on the appeal, neither party can create third-party rights on the land, which bars sale, booking, lease and similar dealings on that parcel.

MGF alleges that M3M got the land mutated on the basis of cancelled deeds, by misleading officials, and then started projects after taking a licence on it. These are the complainant's allegations.

Related M3M project context

M3M's website lists M3M Mansion Phase 1 as a mixed land use colony in the revenue estate of Chauma village, Sector 113, Gurugram-Manesar Urban Complex. The project is developed and promoted by M/s Union Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. Configurations shown are 3.5, 4.5 and 5 BHK apartments and penthouses, plus 0.5 utility space.

Reports do not state that M3M Mansion is the project built on the disputed parcel, so the two should not be linked on the basis of this order.

Reports also say the Chauma land lies in Sector 113, where eight projects are under construction, including M3M Capital phases 1 to 3 and Smartworld One DXP phases. M3M launched its retail project M3M Capitalwalk in Sector 113 in November 2022, with 1,047 units ranging from 100 to 3,000 sq ft.

Same complainant, separate case

MGF Developments is also the complainant in a separate money laundering matter. The Enforcement Directorate provisionally attached property worth Rs 834.03 crore in August 2024. That figure includes Emaar India Ltd property valued at Rs 501.13 crore and MGF Developments Ltd property valued at Rs 332.69 crore. The case concerns a residential plotted colony in Sectors 65 and 66 of Gurugram. The attachment is a different proceeding from the cheating case decided on 17 October 2026.

What happens next

All parties are to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 27 October 2026. The magistrate has been directed to proceed expeditiously under Sections 420, 120B and 34 IPC.

• At the magistrate's stage, the accused will make submissions on framing of charges or discharge.
• MGF Developments' appeal against M3M group entities is pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

For buyers, the order means the criminal case against the M3M group and its promoters continues to trial-stage review. It does not, on its own, stop projects or sales. The court order does not state that it affects bookings or RERA approvals for any project. The interim restraint on third-party rights over the disputed Chauma land is the one restriction on dealings in that parcel that is currently in place.