Special Judge Vishal Gogne set aside a magisterial court order, saying it reflected “inadequate expression of mind” in deciding the allegations against Gambhir.

“The allegations also merit further investigation into the role of Gautam Gambhir,” Judge Gogne wrote in his October 29 order.

An alleged cheating case was filed against real estate firms Rudra Buildwell Realty Pvt. Ltd, H R Infracity Pvt Ltd., U M Architectures and Contractors Ltd., and Gambhir, who was a director and brand ambassador of the companies’ joint venture.

The judge noted Gambhir was the only accused who had a “direct interface with the investors” in his capacity as a brand ambassador and though he had been discharged, the magisterial court’s order made no reference to him paying ₹6 crore to Rudra Buildwell Realty Pvt. Ltd and receiving ₹4.85 crore from the company.

“The chargesheet did not clarify whether the amounts paid back to him by Rudra had any nexus or were sourced from the funds received from the investors in the project in question. Since the core of the allegations pertains to the offence of cheating, it was required to be clarified by the chargesheet and also by the impugned order whether any component of the cheated amount came to the hand of Gambhir,” the judge said.

The court observed Gambhir had had financial transactions with the company beyond his role as a brand ambassador and was an additional director between June 29, 2011 and October 1, 2013, adding “Thus, he was an office bearer when the project was advertised.”

The court underlined the “bulk of the repayment to him” occurred after he had resigned from the position of additional director on October 1, 2013.

“Yet, the impugned order generalised the findings against Gambhir by combining the findings against him with observations of the court regarding other accused . The impugned order reflects inadequate expression of mind in deciding the allegations against Gambhir. The allegations also merit further investigation into the role of Gambhir,” said the order.

The court, therefore, remanded the case back to the magisterial court directing it “to pass a detailed fresh order on the charge specifying the allegations against each accused” in relation to the offences and the corresponding evidence in the chargesheet.

The accused had reportedly jointly promoted and advertised an upcoming housing project at Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh called “Serra Bella” in 2011 which was renamed in 2013 as “Pavo Real”.

The prosecution alleged the complainants booked flats in the projects and paid various amounts, ranging between ₹6 lakh and ₹16 lakh after being lured by the advertisements and brochures.

However, even after the payments, no infrastructural or other development of significance was made on the plot in question and the land remained bereft of any progress till 2016, the time of making of the complaint, it added.

The complainants, it alleged, subsequently learnt the proposed project was neither developed as per the site plan nor been approved by the competent state government authorities.

The companies purportedly stopped entertaining queries and phone calls from the complainants, who further learnt the site of the housing project in question was embroiled in litigation and a stay order had been passed by the Allahabad High Court over the possession of the land in 2003.

This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.