Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 31.03.2007, Chintels India Limited (for short - Chintels), which owned 149.093 acres of land in Gurugram, applied to the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana (for short - DTCP) for the grant of a licence under the 1975 Act for developing a residential colony. Thereafter, on 28.03.2008, Chintels and QVC Realty Company Limited (for short - QVC), the assignors of the aforesaid land, entered into an agreement with Sobha Limited (for short - Sobha) for developing the aforesaid land on a salable area sharing basis and in support of the aforesaid application for the grant of licence, filed such agreement before the DTCP. On favourable consideration of the application, on 22.11.2008, Chintels and DTCP entered into an agreement on the basis of which a licence bearing No.190/2008 dated 24.11.2008 was issued in favour of Chintels. As per the relevant term of the agreement, on which the licence was based, Chintels was required to reserve 25% of the developed residential plots on a 'No Profit No Loss' (for short - NPNL) basis. It was further agreed between the parties that 75% of the NPNL plots would be allotted to registered applicants through a draw of lots (if so required) and the remaining 25% would be allotted to Non 2 of 19 Resident Indians against Foreign Exchange; land owners whose land had been purchased by Chintels for setting up the colony; plots falling in small pockets which subsequently are acquired by the colonizers as part of an area already developed as a colony by Chintels and to such persons whom Chintels may like at its discretion (provided that such allotment did not exceed 5% of the total number of NPNL plots).

Two other licences bearing Nos.58/2013 and 79/2014 for 3.947 acres and 13.375 acres respectively, which also contained similar terms with regard to reserving and allotting NPNL plots, were also obtained by Chintels.

On the strength of the licences obtained by Chintels and the collaboration/ development agreements between Chintels, Sobha and QVC, the land, which was covered under the licences and was situated in Sectors 106, 108 and 109, Gurugram, was started to be developed as a residential colony under the name of 'International City'.

4 of 19 On 20.08.2020 the Haryana Police filed a supplementary charge sheet under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. through which it was inter-alia alleged that qua licences Nos. 58/2013 and 79/2014 Chintels had not obtained any permission from the DTCP for change in beneficiary interest/ joint development rights and since for seeking such permission a fee was required to be paid, which remained unpaid, financial loss had been caused to the government resulting in playing of fraud with the public as also the State of Haryana. Accordingly, in addition to Section 10 of the 1975 Act, the accused were also sought to be prosecuted under Section 420 IPC. On the happening of such an event, in terms of the liberty granted by the Delhi High Court, the ED revived the ECIR and again commenced their investigations culminating in the filing of a complaint under Sections 44 and 45 of the PMLA against Chintels, QVC and the petitioners, who are Managing Directors of QVC and Chintels respectively, seeking therein their prosecution under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA. In the said complaint it was inter-alia alleged that under licence No.190/2008 212 NPNL plots had been sanctioned by the DTCP in the lay out plan but Sobha, Chintels and QVC allotted only 93 such plots and out of these 93 plots Sobha had allotted 59 of them to LLPs created by Sobha. The purpose of formation of LLPs by Sobha was to fraudulently retain ownership of the NPNL plots with itself with a further dishonest intention to show on paper that these plots had been allotted to different parties, as NPNL plots, at the rates determined by the DTCP. Sobha then constructed Villas on these 59 plots to sell them at rates at par with Villas sold under the General Category. So far as Chintels and QVC were concerned, they were alleged to have got constructed Villas on 18 and 16 NPNL plots respectively through Sobha and 5 of 19 then having sold these Villas at rates which were equal to or even higher than the rates of the Villas sold under the general category and in this manner they had generated over Rs.50 crores and Rs.60 crores respectively. When the purchaser of such Villas came to Chintels and QVC for documentation, such purchaser was first asked to sign a document which would show that at an earlier point of time he/ she had been allotted a NPNL plot at the rate determined by the DTCP and that thereafter he/ she had sought construction of a Villa thereupon through Sobha. After the purchaser had been made to sign such document(s) the petitioners then incorporated in the sale/ conveyance deed the price of the land at the rate so determined by the DTCP and correspondingly inflated the cost of the construction to reach at the final sale price which was equivalent to or even higher than the price of Villas sold under the general category.

During the search operations conducted by the ED on the premises of Sobha, Chintels and QVC several incriminating documents are alleged to have been found which include documents showing payment of over Rs.220 crores by Sobha to Chintels/ QVC including Rs.120 crores (approximately) as non-refundable deposit paid by Sobha to Chintels/ QVC much before the issuance of the licence.

It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in this case; the petitioners are in custody since 16.02.2021; both of the petitioners have already been questioned by the ED on over ten occasions and during such questioning they have duly cooperated with the investigating agency; since in the case in hand investigation is complete and even the supplementary report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. / complaint under Sections 44 and 45 of the PMLA has been 6 of 19 filed the petitioners are neither needed by the prosecution for investigation purposes nor are they in any position to influence the investigation; the entire case of the prosecution is based on documents which have already been seized in the course of several raids conducted by the ED on the premises of both the petitioners; properties of both the petitioners for over Rs.50 crores and Rs.60 crores respectively have already been siezed by the ED; the ECIR itself is illegal as the only scheduled offence under the PMLA on which the ECIR rests i.e. Section 420 IPC, is not made out because the allegations to attract applicability of Section 420 IPC are based on an alleged breach of the terms of the agreement/ licence between Chintels and DTCP which breach is exclusively covered under Section 10 of the 1975 Act; even in the initial complaint filed by the DTCP, which became the basis for lodging of the FIR by the Haryana Police, the only allegation contained therein was that the accused had breached the terms of the agreement/ licence and therefore they be proceeded against under Section 10 of the 1975 Act; contravention of Section 10 of the 1975 Act is bailable as it entails a punishment for imprisonment which may extend to three years along with fine; in the supplementary charge sheet filed by the Haryana police the petitioners are sought to be prosecuted under Section 420 IPC only on the ground that qua licence Nos. 58/2013 and 79/2014 Chintels had not obtained prior permission from the DTCP for change in beneficiary interest/ joint development rights which had caused financial loss to the government which permission has since been taken; for the delay in taking such permission the applicable administrative charges, in terms of the order of the DTCP dated 01.04.2016, have already been deposited by Chintels and thus there was no wrongful loss caused by the petitioners to any person/ 7 of 19 authority; there is no complainant, including the DTCP, who/ which even alleges that the petitioners have played any fraud; the prayer made by the ED seeking police remand has been repeatedly rejected by the Trial Court and that in any case violation of the terms of the agreement/ licence with regard to selling of NPNL plots at a rate higher than the rates so determined by the DTCP is compoundable under Section 3(7) of the 1975 Act at the time of completion of the project which stage is yet to reach.