NEW DELHI: 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 his dream flat in one of its projects in Greater Noida.
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 of Supertech Ltd, saying they cannot escape liability and have been rightly summoned by the magisterial court.
“It is 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 by him in ECO Village. It was on their advice and offer that complainant agreed for relocation of his flat from ECO Village 2 to ECO Village 3. Thus, they cannot escape from their liability and they have rightly been impleaded as a party in the case,” the judge said.
A magisterial court had on June 6, 2016 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 on the complaint of Delhi resident Rakesh Chauhan.
According to the complaint, Chauhan had in 2010 booked a flat in Supertech’s ECO Village 2 project in Greater Noida and paid the amount as per the demand of officials of the firm.
He had alleged that he enquired about the progress of construction from the accused but when no construction commenced, the accused informed him about certain hurdles and advised him to go for the flat in their other project named ECO Village 3.
The complainant accepted the offer through letters and e-mails but later through an advertisement in newspaper in 2013 he came to know that accused were selling constructed units of both projects to others and not considering his allotment, he alleged.
He further said that all the three accused started avoiding him and did not respond to his queries.
The court accepted the contention of the complainant and said, “Considering their acts in the commission of offence in the case, the trial court has rightly summoned them for facing trial.
“In the given factual matrix of the case, in my view, the revisionists have rightly been summoned to face trial in the case,” it said.
The accused, in their revision petition, had denied the allegations against them and claimed that the transaction, as alleged, was carried out between the company M/s Supertech Ltd and the complainant and no criminality can be attributed to the accused.
