A Delhi court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against three top officials of real estate major Supertech Ltd. for allegedly cheating a man who had booked a flat in one of its projects in Greater Noida.
‘Rightly summoned’
Additional Sessions Judge R. K. Tripathi dismissed the revision petition filed by Managing Director R. K. Arora, Director G. L. Khera and Manager Guneet Singh saying they cannot escape liability and have been rightly summoned by the magisterial court. “It is a well-settled principle of law that a company does not act on its own. The accused persons are responsible for managing day-to-day affairs of the company. The complainant always met these persons to know about the progress of construction of the unit booked in ECO Village. It was on their advice and offer that the complainant agreed to relocate his flat from ECO Village 2 to ECO Village 3. Thus, they cannot escape from their liability,” the judge said.
‘Did not answer queries’
On June 6, 2016, a magisterial court had summoned the accused to face trial for offences under Sections 420 (cheating), 403 (misappropriation of funds) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the IPC following a complaint by Delhi resident Rakesh Chauhan.
According to the complaint, Mr. Chauhan had booked a flat in Supertech’s ECO Village 2 project in Greater Noida in 2010 and paid the amount demanded by the officials. When he enquired about the progress of construction as work hadn’t started, the accused informed him about certain hurdles and advised him to opt for a flat in another project called ECO Village 3.
The complainant accepted the offer through letters and e-mails. Mr. Chauhan alleged that he came to know through a newspaper advertisement in 2013 that the accused were selling constructed units of both projects to others and hadn’t considering his allotment. He said that the accused started avoiding him and stopped respond to his queries.
Revision plea filed
The court accepted Mr. Chauhan’s contention and said, “Considering their acts in the commission of offence in the case, the trial court has rightly summoned them for facing trial.” The accused, in their revision petition, denied the allegations and claimed that the alleged transaction was carried out between the company M/s Supertech Ltd. and the complainant, and that no criminality can be attributed to the accused.
