Gurgaon: A Delhi sessions court has set aside cognisance of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the IPC against M3M India, its subsidiary companies and several others in a land dispute with MGF Developments. However, it allowed proceedings on allegations of cheating and criminal conspiracy to continue.In an order dated Oct 17, 2026, principal district and sessions judge (central) Anju Bajaj Chandna at Tis Hazari Courts held that the essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust were not made out. The court declined to interfere with the magistrate’s decision to take cognisance of offences under IPC sections 420, 120 B and 34, which deal with cheating, criminal conspiracy and common intention.The developer did not respond to queries sent by TOI.The revision petitions challenged a Jan 31, 2026 order by which the chief judicial magistrate had taken cognisance of the offences on the basis of a police report. Arguments in the petitions were heard on Sept 28, 2026.The case arises from an FIR registered on March 17, 2022, following a complaint by MGF Developments, alleging that land measuring around 31 acres at Chauma in Gurgaon was transferred through exchange deeds on assurances that the outstanding consideration would be paid later. It further alleged post-dated cheques worth about Rs 98 crore were dishonoured, while the land was mutated in favour of companies associated with M3M and steps were initiated to develop a residential project.MGF claimed the transaction caused it losses of approximately Rs 450 crore. These allegations form part of the case and have not been established in a criminal trial.The accused challenged the proceedings on the grounds that the dispute arose from commercial and contractual transactions, that MGF was not a party to the exchange deeds, and that the matter involved competing civil claims over land ownership and development rights. They also submitted that the consideration, along with interest, had subsequently been deposited in court.While examining the charges, the sessions court said criminal breach of trust requires entrustment of property or dominion over it, followed by dishonest misappropriation or misuse. It noted that the prosecution’s account described the land transfers as transactions carried out through exchange deeds for consideration, and not as transfers based on entrustment or trust.On the cheating charge, the court said objections relating to MGF’s standing to lodge the complaint, civil nature of the dispute and merits of the evidence could be raised before the magistrate at an appropriate stage. It held that a revisional court could not conduct a detailed assessment of evidence while examining an order taking cognisance.The order does not decide whether the accused are guilty of cheating or criminal conspiracy. The parties were asked to appear before the chief judicial magistrate on Oct 27 for further proceedings.
