New Delhi: A Delhi court has ordered a fresh probe in a case, involving Gautam Gambhir in which flat buyers were allegedly cheated, while setting aside an order passed by a magistrate court to discharge the Team India cricket head coach.
Overturning the previous judgment, Special Judge Vishal Gogne observed that the ruling reflected “inadequate expression of mind” on the accusations against him. “The impugned order (in which Gambhir was discharged) reflects the inadequate expression of mind in deciding the allegations against Gautam Gambhir. The allegations also merit further investigation into the role of Gautam Gambhir,” the October 29 order said.
The cheating case was filed by homebuyers against three real estate companies – Rudra Buildwell Realty Private Limited, H R Infracity Private Limited and U M Architectures and Contractors Limited – over alleged failure in delivering possession of flats in a housing protect. Gambhir, besides being an additional director of Rudra, was also a brand ambassador for the companies’ joint venture.
Judge Gogne noted that Gambhir was the only accused with a “direct interface with the investors” as a brand ambassador. The lower court’s ruling also did not address his financial involvement with the company, including a payment of Rs 6 crore to Rudra Buildwell Realty Pvt Ltd and a receipt of Rs 4.85 crore in return. “Though the said accused came to be discharged, the impugned order made no reference to the huge amount of Rs 6 crores paid by him to Rudra and the sum of Rs 4,85,00,000 received back by him from the company. The charge sheet did not clarify whether the amounts paid back to him by Rudra had any nexus or were sourced from funds received from the investors in the project in question,” the judge said.
Judge Gogne further highlighted that Gambhir received “bulk of the repayment” post his resignation in 2013 and the previous court order did not fully clarify these transactions.
The lower court has been directed to “pass a detailed fresh order on the charge specifying the allegations against each accused” based on the evidence presented in the charge-sheet.
Since cheating is a scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the matter may be required to be probed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the judge further observed.
