HC refuses to quash proceedings against Supertech chairman in Hill Town homebuyers’ case

The Delhi high court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against Supertech chairman Ram Kishor Arora and two other executives in connection with the alleged non-delivery of flats booked by homebuyers in Supertech Limited’s “Hill Town” project in Sector 2, Sohna, Haryana

The Delhi high court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against Supertech chairman Ram Kishor Arora and two other executives in connection with the alleged non-delivery of flats booked by homebuyers in Supertech Limited’s “Hill Town” project in Sector 2, Sohna, Haryana.

The criminal case arose from a complaint filed by Ajay Kumar Gupta before the Economic Offences Wing over the alleged non-delivery of flats in Supertech Limited’s “Hill Town” project in Sector 2, Sohna, Haryana, launched in 2014. (Representative photo)

A bench of Justice Madhu Jain, in its September 8 verdict released later, observed that the case was not merely about a delay in handing over possession but also concerned the alleged manner in which the transactions were structured, representations made to homebuyers, continued collection of payments and the subsequent failure to fulfil commitments under the subvention arrangement.

The judge, in her 20-page verdict, held that whether these circumstances established dishonest intention from the outset could be determined only after evidence was led.

She further held that the trial court’s order summoning the accused suffered from no jurisdictional defect, patent illegality or manifest perversity warranting interference.

“The prosecution case is, therefore, not based merely upon the assertion that possession was delayed. It is also based upon the manner in which the transactions were allegedly structured, the representations made to the homebuyers, the continued collection of amounts and the subsequent alleged failure to fulfil the commitments forming the basis of the subvention arrangement. Whether these circumstances ultimately establish dishonest intention from the very beginning is a matter which can only be determined after the evidence is led,” the court said.

It added, “At this stage, however, this Court cannot hold that the allegations are so plainly and exclusively civil in nature that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process. Having considered the material placed before this Court, it cannot be said that the impugned orders suffer from any jurisdictional defect, patent illegality or manifest perversity warranting interference under Section 528 BNSS.”

The criminal case arose from a complaint filed by Ajay Kumar Gupta before the Economic Offences Wing over the alleged non-delivery of flats in Supertech Limited’s “Hill Town” project in Sector 2, Sohna, Haryana, launched in 2014. During the investigation, several other homebuyers made similar allegations against the company and its directors.

The buyers alleged that they were required to pay 10% of the sale consideration upfront, while the company had agreed to bear their pre-EMI liability until possession. However, despite these assurances, the flats were not delivered within the stipulated period and the company later stopped paying the pre-EMIs, leaving the homebuyers liable to repay the loans taken from financial institutions.

The FIR was registered on August 18, 2020, and the subsequent chargesheet alleged offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the company and its directors and office-bearers in connection with alleged representations made to homebuyers and the utilisation of funds received from them.

The trial court took cognisance of the offences on March 22, 2025, and summoned the accused. The order was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge on March 30, 2026. Arora and the two other executives subsequently approached the high court seeking quashing of the proceedings.

Arora and the other executives, represented by senior advocate Tanvir Ahmed Mir, contended that the project was delayed due to circumstances beyond their control, including the downturn in the real estate sector, demonetisation and the Covid-19 pandemic. Mir also submitted that the company had initially honoured its obligations by making pre-EMI payments for homebuyers under the subvention scheme.

The EOW, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Manoj Pant, submitted that the complainants alleged a total loss of around ₹22.80 crore. The APP further submitted that the investigation revealed that the company continued to accept booking amounts from homebuyers even after allegedly discontinuing pre-EMI payments under the subvention scheme.