A court in New Delhi on Monday issued a bailable warrant against Subrato Roy, Chairman of Sahara India Group, for allegedly duping 25,000 investors to the tune of Rs 250 crore in a proposed housing project by his company saying there was enough prima facie material to proceed against him.
Chief metropolitan agistrate Vinod Yadav took the action against Roy and four other company officials by directing the Delhi Police to execute the warrant against them by February 9.
The court passed its order after conducting an inquiry and recording the testimony of complainant Neeraj Pandey and his wife Beena who alleged they were not allotted a flat even after investing over Rs one lakh in the proposed housing project 'Sahara Swaran Yojana' of the company in the National Capital Region in 2003.
"It is also apparent that false promises were held out to the general public through brochures/booklets which prima facie amounts to forging the documents. In my opinion, there is prima facie enough material on record to proceed against them for offences punishable under Sections 420 (cheating), 468 (forgery), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 120B (conspiracy) of the IPC," the CMM said.
Pandey's advocate Ashutosh Bhardwaj alleged the company had fraudulently collected Rs 250 crore from 25,000 investors with the false promise of alloting a flat in the project which never took off.
He also alleged the company had illegally routed the money collected from investors for the housing project to other ventures.
The company had launched the scheme 'Sahara Swarn Yojna' for developing 217 townships all over the country, including the NCR region, he said.
In the complaint filed on April 12, 2009, it was alleged that despite the promise made in 2003, no progress was made in its project in the NCR region and the company, after six years, offered to return Rs 1.58 lakh.
Pandey approached the court seeking action against the company and its officials after the police did not act on his complaint alleging cheating, forgery and criminal intimidation.
"It is apparent that till date no allotment has been made to the complainant. It is also apparent that even the site of the township has not been disclosed to him, giving rise to the presumption that despite collecting money from the proposed allottee, the township has not been established," the court said.