Delhi District Court
M/S Orris Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd vs State on 25 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. LOVLEEN, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-03, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
DLSE010080662025
Crl. Rev. No. 451/2025
1. ORRIS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.
Having registered Office at
C-3/260, Janakpuri, New Delhi
2. VIJAY GUPTA
H. NO. 1/29A, Shanti Niketan
New Delhi-110021
3. AMIT GUPTA
H. No. 1/29A, Shanti Niketan
New Delhi-110021
.....Revisionists
Versus
1. STATE
Economic Offence Wing
Mandir Marg
...Respondent
Date of institution : 31.07.2025
CR No.451/2025 M/s. Orris Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs State 1/25
Date of reserving the order : 09.10.2025
Date of pronouncement : 25.10.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This is a revision petition U/s 438 Read with Section 440 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against two orders : one being the summoning order dated 28.09.2019 and other being the order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the Court of Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, South East District in CR Case No. 23689/2019 titled State Vs. Surpreet Singh Suri Etc., which is arising out of FIR No. 137/2017 PS EOW South East. On 28.09.2019, Police filed the first chargesheet in the said FIR and on the same day, Ld. Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable u/s 406/420/467/468/471/120B IPC and ordered the summoning of all the accused persons named therein (including the revisionists). Subsequently, on 25.07.2025, Police filed the fourth supplementary chargesheet in the said FIR. On the said date, copies of the said supplementary chargesheet were supplied to all the accused persons and the matter was listed by the Ld. Magistrate for hearing arguments on the point of charge / scrutiny of supplementary chargesheet as well as for disposal of a pending miscellaneous application. Revisionists are aggrieved by both the said orders.
Grounds of Revision
2. It is claimed by the revisionists:
(a). that the revisionists (hereinafter collectively referred to as Orris) are themselves a victim of the illegalities and fraudulent activities of promoters of company namely Three C Shelters CR No.451/2025 M/s. Orris Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs State 2/25 Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 3C);
(b). that 3C had accepted the obligation of undertaking construction of 'Greenopolis Project' on the land owned by Orris. Actually, 3C had accepted this obligation with a view to dupe public at large, as it did in 17 other development projects.
Instead of fulfilling its said obligations, 3C made fraudulent sales without the intention of completing the construction - thereby defrauding Orris as well as home buyers. 3C misappropriated and siphoned of monies collected from home buyers (who had booked units with 3C) and failed to complete its obligation to deliver homes / flats either to homebuyers of Orris or to those of 3C. Consequently, present FIR was registered at the instance of the home buyers who were victims of fraud commited by 3C;
(c). that after the registration of FIR, the parties got engaged multiple litigations and the matter travelled upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court on multiple occasions. However, the outcome of all the litigations is in favour of Orris - thereby absolving it of all the allegations regarding siphoning of funds, responsibility for construction of homes / flats, fraud, collusion etc. etc.
(d). that it has been established on record that Orris was not obliged to develop the project; rather it was 3C which was solely & exclusively required to raise the construction and deliver the possession. On 01.07.2021, Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered the factual issues to be decided by NCLT and the NCLT, vide its judgement dated 29.03.2022, was pleased to CR No.451/2025 M/s. Orris Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs State 3/25 hold that all sales made by 3C were illegal, 3C was only a 'contractor' and never attained the status of a "developer". The NCLT was also pleased to hold that 3C siphoned off monies. Once the above facts have been adjudicated in civil proceedings, the same could not be made a subject matter of criminal proceedings. In fact the 4th Supplementary Chargesheet bears all the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as other judicial forums, thereby acknowledging that all wrong doings were done by 3C and not Orris;
(e). that as of today, Orris has already offered possession of flats to home buyers in terms of the orders passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 25.03.2025;
(f). that at the instance of Orris, FIR No. 7/2025 PS EOW has already been registered against 3C and its ex- promoters for their above act and conduct.
(g). that a separate FIR No. 120/2022 PS EOW, registered at the instance of 3C against Orris, has already culminated in the form of a Closure Report (meaning that all the allegations of 3C against Orris remained unsubstantiated); which has also been accepted by the Ld. Magistrate, thus affirming the contentions of Orris against 3C;
(h). that proceedings against Orris are liable to be set aside in view of the above facts;
3. A prayer has been made to set aside the impugned orders dated 28.08.2019 and 25.07.2025. Reliance is placed upon Vijay Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi W.P. (Crl) 1952/2022 & Crl. M.A. 16934/2022 CR No.451/2025 M/s. Orris Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs State 4/25 and Sumit Gupta Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. WP Crl. 1748/2023 & Crl. M.A. 16294/2023; Amit Gupta & Anr. Vs. State & Ors. WP (Crl) 785/2024 & Crl.MA 7346/2024; Salman Khurshid Vs. State NCT of Delhi and Others 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11510; Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Another (2019) 17 Supreme Court Cases 1.
Submissions of Home Buyers / Complainants Vijay Jain and Mukesh Kumar Vashisht
4. The prayer of Orris has been vehemently opposed on behalf of Home Buyers / Complainants Vijay Jain and Mukesh Kumar Vashisht. At the very outset, it has been submitted that the present petition is liable to be dismissed summarily with respect to the prayer of Orris qua summoning order dated 28.08.2019 on the ground of limitation. It is further submitted that the order dated 25.07.2025 is purely interlocutory in nature, thereby rendering the present petition legally non-maintainable. On merits, it is submitted that the present petition is nothing but a dishonest attempt of Orris to challenge the order dated 28.08.2019 on the basis of materials which surfaced only in the year 2025. It is further submitted that vide the present petition, Orris is seeking to flip all the established principles of criminal law in order to seek relief, which attempt should be nipped in the bud. It is further submitted that the claims made by Orris are essentially its defence, which could not be gone into at this stage. It is further submitted that the 'outcome of multiple litigations', referred to by Orris to seek relief from this Court, could not be looked into at this stage as none of the forums dealing with the said litigations were a 'Court' for the purposes of Sections 40 to 43 of Indian Evidence Act, nor the said forums dealt with any of the CR No.451/2025 M/s. Orris Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs State 5/25 issues involved in the present FIR. In fact, none of the said forums have observed anything about the merits of the present FIR. It is further submitted that the delayed handing over of possession of flats by Orris does not absolve it of the criminality / culpability. Reason being the fact that it was in fact the duty of Orris - not a charity. It is further submitted that Orris and 3C deliberately discouraged the home buyers from visiting the project site in order to hide the illegalities and dishonesty. Reference has been made to statements of certain witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that Orris and 3C had begun to receive monies from home buyers in violation of the local laws which prevented them from advertising the project before approval of layout plan. It is further submitted that the receipts issued in favour of home buyers bears clear cut references to Orris' involvement in the development of the project and any internal arrangement between Orris and 3C with respect to the development of project was beyond the knowledge of home buyers. It is further submitted that filing of closure report in FIR No. 120/2022 PS EOW and its 'acceptance' by the Ld. Magistrate does not have any bearing on the fate of the present case. It is accordingly argued that none of the impugned orders is liable to be set aside. Written submissions have also been filed by the said home buyers. Reliance has been placed upon Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy and Others Vs. V. Narayana Reddy and Others (1976) 3 Supreme Court Cases 252; K.G. Premshanker Vs. Inspector of Police and Another (2002) 8 Supreme Court Cases 87; Rimjhim Ispat Limited and Others VS. Union of India and Another (2025) 151 GSTR 615: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1517; Kailash Vs. Arjun Singh & Ors. ILR 2022 MP 1660 MCRC No. 57102/2021 (Gwalior) Decided on 21.04.2022; Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Another (2012) 9 Supreme Court CR No.451/2025 M/s. Orris Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs State 6/25 Cases 460; State of Gujarat Vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta (2019) Supreme Court Cases 539; Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Neeraj Kumar 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1351.
Submissions of Home Buyers / Complainants Abhishek Kr. Gupta, Aditya Kumar Goel, Vinod Negi, Mahendra Chhabra, Gagan chhabra, Neeraj Arora, Aman Madan, Kapil Dev Rehani, Rakesh Kakkar and Sahil Agarwal
5. In addition to the above submissions made on behalf of Home Buyers / Complainants Vijay Jain and Mukesh Kumar Vashisht, it has been argued that Orris never reserved its right to challenge summoning order dated 28.08.2019, therefore, it may not be permitted to agitate its grievance at such a belated stage. It is further submitted that Orris and 3C deliberately concealed the factum of existence of a nala (drain) as well as a high tension electric line running through the project land from all the home buyers, thereby depriving them of an opportunity to make an informed decision regarding investments in the Greenopolis project. It is further submitted that Orris was a party to the delay caused in the development of the project. Reliance is placed upon the letter dated 14.09.2017 issued by Orris in favour of 3C. It is further submitted that none of the above named home buyers have been given any possession of their flats by Orris or 3C. It is further submitted that even otherwise, subsequent handing over of possession does not have any effect on the present proceedings. Written submissions have also been filed.
Submissions on behalf of Greenopolis Welfare Association (GWA).
6. In addition to the above submissions made on behalf of the home CR No.451/2025 M/s. Orris Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs State 7/25 buyers named above, it is submitted that on 25.07.2025, Orris took an adjournment from the Ld. Magistrate on the pretext of moving a discharge application. However, instead of filing any discharge application, Orris hurriedly filed the present petition. It is submitted that the cause behind the filing of present petition is the fact that on 31.07.2025 Enforcement Directorate had filed a complaint against Orris in the competent Court of law. It is accordingly argued that Orris may not be granted any relief in the light of its misconduct before the Ld. Magistrate (in making false and misleading submissions).
Submissions of State
7. Ld. Addl. PP for State supports the arguments made above against Orris.
Rebuttal by Orris
8. In rebuttal, it is submitted on behalf of Orris that fundamentally, the investigation culminated only at the time of filing of the fourth supplementary chargesheet. It is submitted that had Orris challenged the summoning order dated 28.08.2019 prior to the filing of fourth supplementary chargesheet, it would have faced an uphill task of convincing the Court to set aside the summoning order in the face of an argument to the effect that investigation was still pending in the FIR. As such, Orris waited till the filing of fourth supplementary chargesheet on 25.07.2025 when the summoning order dated 28.08.2019 stood merged with the subsequent order dated 25.07.2025. It is submitted that even otherwise the delay in challenging the summoning order dated 28.08.2019 had already been condoned by the Ld. Predecessor of this court on 01.08.2025. On merits, it is submitted that all the home buyers visited the project site and were well aware of the presence of a nala (drain) as well as CR No.451/2025 M/s. Orris Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs State 8/25 a high tension electric line running through the project land. Therefore, none of them could claim to have been deceived in any manner. It is further submitted that the innocence of Orris has been established by the documents presented by Prosecution itself and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
DISCUSSION
9. This court has considered the records as well as the submissions made by the parties.
Limitation
10. It would be appropriate that firstly this Court deals with the contentions of the parties regarding the question of 'delay' made by the Orris in impugning the summoning order dated 28.09.2019. It is the claim of Orris that the summoning order dated 28.09.2019 stood merged in the subsequent order dated 25.07.2025 - when the fourth supplementary chargesheet was filed by the police. It is further submitted on behalf of Orris that the Ld. Predecessor of this court had already condoned the delay vide his order dated 01.08.2025. As such, this revision petition is liable to be decided on merits only. On the other hand, the respondents claim that Orris' petition is liable to be dismissed summarily with respect to the prayer qua summoning order dated 28.08.2019 on the ground of limitation. As to the condonation of delay vide order dated 01.08.2025, it is argued by the respondents that the said order was challenged by GWA vide Crl. MC No. 5741/2025 Cr.M.A. 24619-24621/2025 titled G.W.A Vs. The State and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, speaking through the final order dated 20.08.2025, clearly observed that all the rights and contention of parties are kept open. It is submitted that this Court must decide the point of 'delay' afresh.
CR No.451/2025 M/s. Orris Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs State 9/25
11. Having considered the above submissions, this Court must observe that vide his order dated 01.08.2025, the Ld. Predecessor of this Court was pleased to condone the delay made by Orris in challenging the summoning order dated 28.09.2019. At the same time, Ld. Predecessor of this court also stayed the operation of summoning order dated 28.09.2019 and the order dated 25.07.2025 qua Orris. GWA challenged the said order dated 01.08.2025 through the above mentioned Crl. MC No. 5741/2025 Cr.M.A. 24619-24621/2025. The said petition was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 20.08.2025. It would be appropriate that the relevant extracts of the order dated 20.08.2025 be reproduced below for ready reference. The same are as under:-
3. Mr. Khatri further submits that, nonetheless, he has already filed an application before the Revisional Court seeking permission to be heard. As the said application is pending consideration, and the impugned proceedings have not culminated in final adjudication, Mr. Khatri, after making submissions for some time, seeks leave to withdraw the present petition, with liberty to pursue the aforesaid application before the Revisional Court and avail all such remedies as are available under law.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Aman Lekhi and Mr. Madhav Khurana, senior counsels, appearing for the Petitioner in the revision petition, i.e., M/s Orris Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., object to the locus standi of the present Petitioner in invoking the jurisdiction of this Court. They submit that they reserve all rights to oppose the Petitioner's application pending before the Revisional Court at the appropriate stage.
5. In view of the submissions, leave and liberty as prayed for are granted to the Petitioner. The Revisional Court shall consider the Petitioner's application strictly in accordance with law. All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open.
6. Accordingly, the present petition, along with the pending applications, stands disposed of.
(emphasis supplied) CR No.451/2025 M/s. Orris Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs State 10/25
12. It is apparent from the above extracts that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to permit GWA to withdraw the said Crl. MC No. 5741/2025 Cr.M.A. 24619-24621/2025 while granting it liberty to press its miscellaneous Crl. application No. 1023/2025 titled State Vs. Vijay Jain Etc. (seeking inter alia to 'intervene' in the present revision petition), which is currently pending before this Court. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was also pleased to direct that this Court is to consider the latter application strictly in accordance with law and to observe that ' All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open'. This Court observes that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, while permitting GWA to withdraw said Crl. MC No. 5741/2025 Cr.M.A. 24619-24621/2025, has not set aside any of the observations / decisions made by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court on 01.08.2025. That being so, the observations made by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi regarding the 'rights and contentions of parties remaining open' could not be interpreted to hold that the order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court no longer exists on file. Meaning thereby, the decision of Ld. Predecessor of this Court, whereby he condoned the delay, also stands on record. Admittedly, this court does not have the powers to recall the said decision. As such, this Court does not find it appropriate to delve afresh into the question of 'delay' or its condonation. This Court shall accordingly proceed further with the adjudication of the present petition on merits.
Merits
13. Admittedly, the summoning order dated 28.09.2019 was passed by the Ld. Magistrate on the basis of first chargesheet filed by Police in FIR No. 137/2017 PS EOW. Briefly stated, Police discovered during investigation that on 23.12.2011 Orris obtained a 'licence' from the CR No.451/2025 M/s. Orris Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs State 11/25 Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Haryana for development of a residential township in Gurgaon. Prior thereto, on 02.11.2011 Orris had entered into a 'Development Agreement' with 3C for construction of the said township. As per said Agreement, construction rights were granted to 3C and it was further agreed that Orris shall be entitled to 35% of the developed area while 3C would be entitled to 65% of the developed area. As per chargesheet, 3C is liable to complete the construction work of the township. Chargesheet further reflects that Building plans for the said township were approved on 07.06.2012. Prior to the approval of Building plans, Orris was not permitted to advertise the said township to public at large. However, Orris and 3C started receiving monies from home buyers from February 2012 onwards, which fact is alleged to be the first instance of the dishonesty of both Orris as well as 3C. Chargesheet further reflects that the Apartment Buyers Agreements executed by Orris and 3C have deliberately concealed the existence of a chemical effluent runnel (nala) and a high tension wire, both running through the project land, which fact is also alleged to be amounting to dishonest and fraudulent inducement of home buyers to invest their money in the said township. Chargesheet further reflects that construction of the township was inordinately delayed. Chargesheet further reflects that 3C has advanced hefty loans to group companies, none of which could be recovered and expended on the development work of the township. It is further alleged that 3C also issued certain 'instruments', leading to an adverse effect on the financial health of development project. Chargesheet further reflects an allegation to the effect that none of the accused persons (including Orris, 3C and others) made an honest effort to complete the development of the township. Neither did the accused persons bother to refund the amounts collected from the home CR No.451/2025 M/s. Orris Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs State 12/25 buyers. Consequently, all of them were chargesheeted u/s 120B IPC and Section 406/420/467/468/471 IPC. While filing the first chargesheet, Police arrayed as many as 17 home buyers as witnesses against all the accused persons.
14. Given the background of the allegations levelled in the said chargesheet, it would be appropriate that this Court refers to the relevant documents relied upon by Police to array Orris as accused. The first document referred to by the police is the Development Agreement dated 02.11.2011 executed between 3C, Orris and some others. The said Development Agreement contains a reference to the desire of Orris and some others to develop a township on land measuring apprx. 47 acres. Vide the said agreement, 3C was granted all the rights to construct and establish the proposed township at its own costs, with a covenant that the units (flats / houses) to be developed shall be shared in the ratio of 65% and 35% between 3C and Orris respectively. It was further agreed that Orris and others shall not interfere with the construction activities to be carried out by 3C. It was further agreed that 3C shall be entitled to the rights of pre-sale, sale, booking, allotment etc. etc. of its share of the units in an independent manner. In consideration whereof, 3C was to pay a sum of Rs. 111 crores apprx. to Orris as per scheduled dates. Essentially, the Development Agreement dated 02.11.2011 establishes that it was the sole and exclusive responsibility of 3C to construct and develop the proposed township and that Orris and others were not at all concerned with the said aspects.
15. Now, this Court proceeds to the Apartment Buyer Agreements. Of the 17 homebuyers cited as witnesses in the first chargesheet, only two home buyers namely Deepak Sahni and Anjali Bansal were allotted units by Orris. Rest were allotted units by 3C. The Apartment Buyer Agreements CR No.451/2025 M/s. Orris Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs State 13/25 were executed between home buyers, 3C, Orris and certain other owners of the land (on which the proposed township was to come up). All the said Agreements begin with the following recitals:-
WHEREAS A. The 'GREENOPOLIS is a Residential Group Housing Project (the "Project") being developed by 3C, on a parcel of land admeasuring 47.218 acres situated in the revenue estate of village Hayatpur, Tehsil referred to as the "Land") by virtue of an agreement dated 02-11-2011 executed between Orris and Owners on the one hand and 3C on the other (hereinafter refered to as the "Development Agreement"). The Director Town and Country Planning (DTCP), Haryana has granted license to develop and construct the said Group Housing Project in favour of the Owners vide license No. 115 of 2011 dated 23-12-2011 ("License").
B. As per the terms of the Development Agreement, 3C is entitled to the Apartment, defined hereinafter, which is the subject matter of this Agreement and is competent to execute this Agreement in favour of the Buyer.
C. The Buyer has approached the 3C vide application dated 07/Aug/2012 (the "Application") for purchase of Apartment No.17-882 in the said Project having an approximate Super Area admeasuring 177.44 Sq. Mt. (1910.00 Sq. Ft.) on Eighth Floor, in Tower 17 pursuant to which the 3C has vide its letter dated 27/Aug/2012 (the "Allotment Letter"), provisionally allotted the said Apartinent No. 17-802 in the said Project (the CR No.451/2025 M/s. Orris Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs State 14/25 "Apartment").
D. The Buyer has requested to the 3C and the 3C has allowed the Buyer the Inspection of building plans, title documents including and all other documents relating to the title, and all other relevant details of the Project as well as in respect of the Apartment and the Buyer has confinned that the Buyer is fully satisfied in all respects with regard to the right, title and Interest of Orris, Owners and the 3C in the said Project and has understood all limitations and obligations of the 3C, Orris and the Owners in respect thereof. The Buyer assures that the Investigations by the Buyer are complete and the Buyer is fully satisfied that the 3C is competent to enter into this Agreement. E. The Buyer acknowledges that the 3C has provided all information & clarifications as required by the Buyer and that the Buyer has not unduly relied upon and is not influenced by any architect plans, sales plans, sale brochures, advertisements, representations, warranties, statements or estimates of any nature whatsoever whether written or oral made by the 3C, its selling agents/brokers or otherwise including but not limited to any representations relating to description or physical condition of the property, the Project and the said Apartment (including the size and dimensions and any other physical characteristics thereof), the services to be provided by the 3C, the estimated facilities/amenities to be made available to the Buyer(s) or any other data except as specifically represented in this Agreement and the Application and that the Buyer has relied solely on the Buyer's own judgment and Investigation(s) in deciding to enter CR No.451/2025 M/s. Orris Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs State 15/25 into this Agreement to purchase the Apartment. No oral or written representations or statements (except as set out herein) made by or on behalf of any party, shall be considered to be part of this Agreement and that this Agreement shall be self- contained and complete in itself in all respects. ........................................................................... ............................................................................. i. The buyer agrees and acknowledges that the ownership and occupation of the Apartment in the project will be subject to a number of restrictions as also obligations as detailed in this agreement, and the buyer offers to so conduct himself / herself / itself.
........................................................................... ........................................................................... 5.3 Prior to handing over of the possession of the Apartment to Buyer, the 3C shall obtain the part/full building completion (occupancy) certificate from Director Town and Country Planning (DTCP), Haryana.
5.4 Without prejudice to the above, it is hereby agreed that possession of Apartment shall be delivered by the Orris to the Buyer only upon registration of the conveyance deed and the 3C having received the part, occupation / part occupation certificate from Director Town and Country Planning (DTCP), Haryana, and subject to all dues and demands payable up to the dale of such possession, including as specified under this agreement, by the Buyer have been made to the Orris together with all applicable interest (including for any delays), and all CR No.451/2025 M/s. Orris Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs State 16/25 Taxes.
It is, however, agreed and understood by the Parties that various towers in the Project are to be completed in phases and upon the completion of each such tower, the apartments therein shall be handed over to the respective buyers of that tower after obtaining part occupation certificate from DTCP, Haryana.
............................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................
16. Apparently, each home buyer has acknowledged the existence of above mentioned Development Agreement dated 02.11.2011 in their respective Apartment Buyer Agreements. It is further mentioned therein that the home buyer has been allowed to inspect building plans, title documents as well as other relevant details of the development project and that the home buyer has clearly understood all limitations and obligations of 3C, Orris and certain other owners of the land. It is further evident that parties have covenanted that the home buyer has not unduly relied upon and is not influenced by any architect plans, sales plan, sale brochures, advertisements, representations, warranties, statements etc. etc. including the representations relating to description and the physical condition of the project or the unit. Parties have specifically covenanted that no oral or written representations or statements made by any of them or on their behalf shall be considered to be a part of Apartment Buyer Agreement. Rather, it has been agreed that the Apartment Buyer Agreement is self contained and complete in all respect. Till this juncture, there is no allegation regarding dishonesty or fraud on the part of any parties (viz.
CR No.451/2025 M/s. Orris Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs State 17/25 there are no allegations regarding existence of any dispute with respect to the title or possession of the land upon which the township is to come up or that the developers are not possessed of requisite authority to develop the said township). All the parties, especially the home buyers, seem to have a clear understanding of the facts and circumstances surrounding the construction / development of the township.
17. Here, it would be appropriate to mention that on 29.03.2022 the Hon'ble NCLT, while deciding the grievances related to the project in terms of directions passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 01.07.2021 in an SLP, observed as under w.r.t the status and misconduct of 3C:-
"74...the status of the Corporate Debtor was merely of that a "Contractor" and not that of a "Developer or Promoter"... ... Thus, the Corporate Debtor has got no right, title & interest in the said project and also have no right to dispose-of the property or sell any of the units as well..."
76 ...Therefore, the status of the Three C Shelters Pvt. Ltd was merely that of "contractor" and it was holding the land in that capacity only for raising the building under the said agreement and except that it has no right, title & interest in the said property. Accordingly, the said property remains that of Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd
87... there was actual siphoning-of major chunk of amount from the Greenopolis project by Three C Shelters Pvt. Ltd. and qua that a specific order was passed in the matter of 20.09.2018 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
91(a) Orris is necessary party to the lis, being aggrieved party,...
91(d). On the strength of collaboration agreement dated 02.11.2011, the status of the corporate debtor is mere of "contractor' and not "Statutory License Holder', of project Greenopolis, accordingly, it does not vest with any right, title and interest in that project.
CR No.451/2025 M/s. Orris Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs State 18/25
18. Although on 28.08.2023 Hon'ble NCLAT had set aside the judgement passed by Hon'ble NCLT (wherein the said observations were made), however, the said order dated 28.08.2023 was set aside by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 19.11.2024 in Civil Appeal @Diary No. 40077/2023 titled 'Straight Edge Contracts Pvt. Ltd. v Rakesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. In other Civil Appeals No. 6792-6796/2023 titled Greenopolis Welfare Confederation v Rakesh Kumar Gupta & Ors., on 19.11.2024 Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to stay the order dated 28.08.2023 passed by Hon'ble NCLAT. Meaning thereby, the above observations made by Hon'ble NCLT on 29.03.2022 still stand on record. Admittedly, the same are relevant to the issue (please see Section 41 of Evidence Act). As such, the same could not be ignored by this court even at this stage. Apparently, these observations fortify the above observations of this court about the obligations of 3C vis-a-vis the development of project.
19. Proceeding further, this court notes that it is only when the construction / development of township got delayed inordinately that some of the home buyers alleged that 3C and Orris have conspired together to deprive them of their hard earned money on the pretext of being given units (flats / houses) in the said township. The first allegation in the chargesheet is to the effect that Orris and 3C started receiving monies from public at large even before the sanction of Building / Layout plan of the township by the concerned public authority. Admittedly, chargesheet does not bear any reference to any law or bye-laws or rules or other bilateral/multilateral document which legally prevented any party from receiving any monies from public in the relevant period. Admittedly, the "license" granted by DTCP, Haryana on 23.12.2011 to set up the 'project' does not bear any CR No.451/2025 M/s. Orris Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs State 19/25 condition preventing any party from receiving monies. Admittedly, there is nothing on record to show that any of the monies were received prior to 23.12.2011. That being so, Orris could not be prosecuted on the basis of above allegations. Moreso, when ex-facie the said allegations do not justify the charges Orris are facing. The only 'bar' was w.r.t the 'advertisement' of project before sanction of Building/Layout Plans. Admittedly, police has concluded in the 4th chargesheet that even for the said misconduct 3C was responsible. As such, no culpability could be attached to Orris for the said act.
20. The second allegation is to the effect that Apartment Buyers Agreements executed by Orris have deliberately concealed the existence of a chemical effluent runnel (nala) and a high tension wire, both running through the project land, which act amounts to a fraud committed against the home buyers. Here, this Court must again refer to the terms and conditions of Apartment Buyer Agreements. As observed in the aforegoing paragraph, the Apartment Buyer Agreements clearly reflect recitals to the effect that the home buyer has been allowed to inspect building plans, title documents as well as other relevant details of the development project and that the home buyer has clearly understood all limitations and obligations of 3C, Orris and certain other owners of the land. It is further evident from the Apartment Buyer Agreements that parties have covenanted that the home buyer has not unduly relied upon and is not influenced by any architect plans, sales plan, sale brochures, advertisements, representations, warranties, statements etc. etc. including the representations relating to description and the physical condition of the project or the unit. Parties have specifically covenanted that no oral or written representations or CR No.451/2025 M/s. Orris Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs State 20/25 statements made by any of them or on their behalf shall be considered to be a part of Apartment Buyer Agreement. Apparently, the covenants of the Apartment Buyer Agreement clearly and categorically negate the said allegations levelled against Orris. That being so, this Court is constrained to hold that the said oral allegations did not hold any water even at the stage of filing of the chargesheet. Even otherwise, it is difficult to assume that a party (home buyer) spending such a hefty amount on the purchase of an immoveable property would not even bother to visit the site even once before investing his money. In the considered opinion of this court, every home buyer does visit the site of any project wherein he is investing money in order to ascertain the location and pricing of the project at least. If that were so, the presence of a chemical effluent runnel (nala) and a high tension wire would have definitely been noticed by all of the home buyers. These assumptions have been made by this court on account of the fact that none of the home buyers have asserted in their statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C that they did not visit the site even once before investing money.
21. The third allegation is to the effect that none of the accused persons (including Orris, 3C and others) made an honest effort to complete the development of the township. In order to contest the above allegations, Orris has placed a heavy reliance on the observations made by Hon'ble NCLT in its judgement dated 29.03.2022 (reproduced in above para). That apart, Orris places reliance on the outcomes of following litigations in order to agitate that 3C was solely responsible for development of project:-
a. C.A. 7704 / 2023 -Three C Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rakesh Kumar Gupta & Ors- The said Civil Appeal was filed on behalf of Three C stating that Orris has siphoned off monies and Orris was blamed for CR No.451/2025 M/s. Orris Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs State 21/25 non-completion of the Project. The said Appeal along with the accompanying Application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11.03.2024.
b. C.A. 4032 / 2023- Anju Kanwar Gulati & Ors. Vs. Rakesh Kumar Gupta & Ors.- This Appeal was filed by 9 persons who are members of GWA and claim to be homebuyers alleging Siphoning off monies by Orris and also that Orris was responsible and accountable for completion of construction. As per Orris, this Appeal was filed with ad-verbatim pleadings as those in the Appeal of Three C, and filed within a gap of 10 minutes. Further, the Appeal of Three C, and this Appeal by members of GWA, were both dismissed by Order dated 11.03.2024.
c. A writ petition being W.P ( C) 240 of 2024 was filed by a few complainants [namely Aditya Goel, Vinod Negi & Aman Madan] before the Hon'ble Supreme Court [who had paid monies to Three C], alleging siphoning off funds by Orris and attributing the responsibility of construction on Orris. The same was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 22.04.2024.
d. Contempt Petition Diary No. 373 / 2023 filed by one Aditya Goel, also complainant in the present FIR : In this Contempt Petition, the allegation made was that Orris is shifting its allottees to phase-1 and allotments made by Orris were in contempt of the Status Quo order dt. 13.10.2023 of Supreme Court. -All of the aforesaid contentions have been rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissing the Contempt Petition by its order dt. 03.05.2024.
CR No.451/2025 M/s. Orris Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs State 22/25 21.1. Orris also claims that 3C has been indulging in proxy litigation against itself (Orris) in order to slip away from its obligations under the Development Agreement. It is further submitted that GWA (claimed to be a proxy of 3C) sought deletion of 3C from a matter pending in Hon'ble NCDRC. But, on 11.04.2023, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi directed the Hon'ble NCDRC to keep the Development Agreement in mind while adjudicating the said matter. That apart, Orris submits that GWA also attempted to intervene in insolvency proceedings of 3C, but that attempt was rejected by Hon'ble NCLT & Hon'ble NCLAT. Lastly , it is submitted that GWA was severely castigated by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 25.03.2025 as well. Orris relies on the observations made at para 18, which is as under:-
"18. Unhesitatingly, the sheer audacity of the objector, namely rival GWA, is apparent. Repeated attempts have been made to deflect attention from TCSPL and its sister concerns, which have allegedly defrauded numerous homebuyers. Instead, with ulterior motives, the objector seeks to divert focus to a separate set of homebuyers who are rightfully entitled to possession of constructed residential flats/units from Orris".
21.2. Irrespective of the above arguments raised by Orris, this court must observe here that the Developement Agreement dt. 02.11.2011 clearly establishes the fact that 3C was solely responsible for the development of township. In fact, Police has finally concluded in the investigation that 3C was solely liable to complete the development work of township and not Orris. At the cost of repetition, this court must also observe that Hon'ble NCLT has also concluded so in its judgement dated 29.03.2022. As such, Orris could not be fastened with criminal liability merely at the asking of CR No.451/2025 M/s. Orris Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs State 23/25 home buyers, that too in contrast of the terms & conditions of Apartment Buyers Agreement.
22. The last allegation against Orris is to the effect that Orris entered into Development Agreement with 3C without the approval of the concerned public authority which granted license to Orris for development of said township. Admittedly, the license dated 23.12.2011, issued in favour of Orris and some others, does not bear any condition prohibiting Orris from entering into such an agreement. As such, this allegation did not hold any water either at the time of filing of chargesheet.
23. Admittedly, the rest of the allegations in the chargesheet are regarding the siphoning of funds by 3C. The chargesheet does not reflect any other wrong-doings by Orris. Rather, all the documentary materials placed on record by Police seem to be exculpatory qua Orris. In such facts and circumstances, this Court fails to understand as to why Orris were arrayed as accused in the chargesheets filed by the Police. In the absence of any verifiable material reflecting the existence of any conspiracy to defraud home buyers by collecting their money on the pretext of allotting / selling them units in the said township; and in view of the clear cut recitals of the Development Agreement dated 02.11.2011 as well as the Apartment Buyer Agreements, this Court could not hold that sufficient materials were available against Orris for being summoned on the basis of said chargesheet on 28.09.2019. None of the arguments raised by any of the respondents are sufficient to dislodge the effect of the above mentioned agreements. Neither does any of the arguments merit any adverse inferences to be drawn against Orris at this stage.
24. In view of the above discussion, summoning order dated 28.09.2019 CR No.451/2025 M/s. Orris Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs State 24/25 is liable to be set aside qua 'Orris' (i.e. all the revisionists herein). Ordered accordingly. As a corollary, all the proceedings following the said summoning order dated 28.09.2019 are also set aside qua 'Orris'. Revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.
25. TCR be sent back along with the copy of this judgment.
Digitally
26. Revision file be consigned to Record Room as per rules. signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2025.10.25 13:35:00 +0530 Dictated and Announced in open Court on 25.10.2025 (Lovleen) ASJ-03 (South East), Saket Courts, New Delhi CR No.451/2025 M/s. Orris Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs State 25/25