New Delhi [India], November 18: Providing relief to India head coach Gautam Gambhir, the Delhi High Court on Monday stayed the trial court order which had set aside the discharge of the former cricketer in an alleged cheating case with home buyers. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri stayed the order saying, " Will pass a detailed order. The stay shall remain continue till date." Earlier, the magistrate court had discharged Gambhir. But, the session court had set aside the said order. Following this, the former cricketer challenged the session court order in the Delhi High Court. Senior advocates Mukul Rohtagi and Sandeep Sethi assisted by Advocate Paritosh Budhiraja, appeared in Gambhir. Sanjay Manjrekar Criticises India Head Coach Gautam Gambhir for His Pre-Departure Press Conference Ahead of Border-Gavaskar Trophy 2024–25, Urges BCCI to ‘Keep Him Away From Such Duties’.

It was also submitted that Gambhir has an unblemished record. To be an ambassador for companies is normal for celebrities. The Rouse Avenue court on October 29 had set aside a magistrate court order for the discharge of former BJP MP and India Head Coach Gautam Gambhir in connection with alleged cheating of home buyers by realty companies. The amount of alleged cheating is Rs 3.5 crores. Gambhir was the brand ambassador of the project.

Special Judge Vishal Gogne set aside the discharge order passed by the additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on December 10, 2020.

The court said that the allegedly cheated amount of Rs 3.5 crores, mentioned as the booking amount received from the investors, if it was indeed derived as a result of criminal activity of any of the accused persons (whether charged or discharged) may be required to be probed as "proceeds of crime" and any of the accused who were involved in activity connected to such possible "proceeds of crime" including by way of concealment, possession or acquisition may have to be investigated concerning "money laundering".

The Special Court had remanded back the matter to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate with a direction to pass a detailed fresh order on charge specifying the allegations against each accused concerning offence or provision and the corresponding material cited by the prosecution with reference to the chargesheet. The said order discharged the accused persons namely Gautam Gambhir, Ashok Kumar Makkar, Rahul Chamola, Rakesh Kumar Kuldeep Singh Wadhawan and Romy Pawan Mehra. Gautam Gambhir Downplays Criticism He Faced After New Zealand Test Series Whitewash, Says ‘What Difference Does It Make in My Life’?

These accused had been previously placed by the Investigation Officer in column no.12 ( not charge sheeted) of the chargesheet and summoned by the trial court. The ACMM had found a prima facie case under section 420 read with section 34 IPC was made out against accused Mukesh Khurana, Babita Khurana and Gautam Mehra while a prima facie case was also made out under Section 420 IPC against two companies namely M/S Rudra Buildwell Realty Pvt. Ltd and M/S H R Infracity Pvt Ltd.

"However, prior to a fresh hearing on the aspect of the charge, and to avoid uninformed or unsubstantiated findings, the trial court shall consider directions for further investigation in light of the observations made in this order and in light of the wide powers discussed in Vinubhai and Hemendhra Reddy," Special Judge Vishal Gogne ordered on October 29. The Special Court had observed, "Interestingly, cheating (Section 420 IPC) is a scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). Any property arrived from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence would be of the description "proceeds of crime" as defined under Section 2 (u) of PMLA."

"A person involved in activity connected to the "proceeds of crime", including its concealment, possession or acquisition would be liable for prosecution relating to the offence of "money laundering", as defined under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of PMLA," the court said. Upon query from the Court, the IO had stated that the allegations had neither been investigated with reference to money laundering nor was information regarding the funds involved in the present investigation shared with any other investigation agency tasked with probing money-laundering. Gautam Gambhir Slams Ricky Ponting Over Virat Kohli 'Preference' Remark as India Head Coach Attends Pre-Departure Press Conference in Mumbai Ahead of Border-Gavaskar Trophy 2024–25.

In the assessment of this Court, the investigation of the present FIR was grossly inadequate and also failed to discharge the duty of information sharing with other agencies. Upon such patent lacunae coming to the notice of the Court, appropriate directions cannot be abdicated. Complainant SK Shukla and 16 other filed a complaint on May 20, 2015 with the DCPEconomic Offence Wing, Crime Branch, Delhi police seeking registration of a complaint against three companies of the description M/S Rudra Buildwell Realty Pvt. Ltd, M/S H R Infracity Pvt. Ltd and M/S U M Architectures and Contractors Ltd.

The complaint had also named a fourth accused namely Gautam Gambhir, Director and Brand Ambassador. The complaints alleged that these three companies were engaged in the business of Real Estate and had jointly promoted as well as advertised an upcoming housing project by the name 'Serra Bella' in July/August 2011. This project was later renamed as 'Pavo Real' in 2013. The project was located at Indira Puram, Ghaziabad, UP and was promoted through the print and other media.

It was alleged that Gautam Gambhir was stated to have been attracting and inviting buyers as the Brand Ambassador for this project. The complainants were allegedly lured to invest in this project through such advertisements and the project brochure. They thus booked flats in the projects and paid various amounts, mostly in the range of Rs 6 lakh to 16 lakhs for various flats in the project.

The allegations of criminality arose when the complaints learnt that the site of the housing project in question was embroiled in litigation and a stay order had been passed by the Allahabad High Court regarding the possession of the land in the year 2003. The complaint alleged that any sort of business transaction or other activity at the land in question was explicitly prohibited by an order of Se[tember 22, 2014. (ANI)

(This is an unedited and auto-generated story from Syndicated News feed, LatestLY Staff may not have modified or edited the content body)