Patiala House District Court: In a complaint filed under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 379, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for alleged fraud and non-possession of promised property; Vijayshree Rathore, Judicial Magistrate First Class, took a prima facie view that the accused has committed offence punishable under Sections 420/34 IPC and accordingly took cognizance of the same. Summons, returnable for 15 October 2026 , were issued to the respondent company through its directors.
Background
The complainant and her husband booked a residential unit with Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. and paid an advance booking amount in 2013. Acting on the company’s assurances, they also availed a housing loan from a bank. Subsequently, a residential unit was allotted to them, and a tripartite agreement was executed between the parties. The unit was allotted vide an allotment letter dated 5 August 2013 for a total sale consideration of ₹44,30,125. Against this, the complainants had already paid ₹41,99,198, nearly the entire agreed amount, when they alleged the company duped and defrauded them of this sum.
The complainant alleged that the company, by employing deceptive practices, duped and defrauded them of their hard-earned money amounting to ₹41,99,198. It was further alleged that, even after the stipulated project deadline, i.e., 2016, they were forced to take possession of an incomplete unit without an occupation certificate and not fit for dwelling purposes. The complainant also alleged that the company failed to pay the pre-EMIs/EMIs to the lending bank as agreed, adversely affecting their CIBIL score and financial credibility and compelling them to repay the entire loan amount themselves. Despite lodging a police complaint, no action was taken.
The complaint alleged commission of offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 379 IPC.
The complainant examined herself and her husband as witnesses. In support of the complaint, they relied upon payment receipts, account statements, pre-EMI/EMI receipts, a no dues certificate, a request letter for handing over possession, photographs depicting the status of the project, and correspondence addressed to the authorities.
Also Read: Rajasthan RERA restrains SBI in Tripartite Agreement Dispute | SCC Times
Findings and Order
Upon perusing the record, the Court noted that despite payment of ₹41,99,198, the unit was initially not handed over to the complainants. The Court further noted the allegations that they were subsequently forced to take possession of an incomplete unit without an occupation certificate and not fit for dwelling purposes. It also noted the allegation that the company had failed to pay the pre-EMIs/EMIs as agreed, affecting the complainants’ CIBIL score and financial credibility and compelling them to repay the entire loan amount themselves.
Considering the testimony of the complainants and other witnesses, together with the documents placed on record, including the payment receipts and other supporting documents, the Court observed that, prima facie, an offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC was made out. The Court further observed that the complainants had deposed on oath and that there was no reason to disbelieve their testimony at that stage.
Accordingly, the Court took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC and directed issuance of summons to Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. through its director Pranav Ansal, subject to filing of the process fee.
Also Read: Homebuyers’ Conundrum: Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don’t | SCC Times
[Swaran Lata Thakur v. Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd., Ct Case No. 59059 of 2024, decided on 28-7-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the complainant: Alankrit Bhatnagar, Advocate
For the defendant: N/A