Additional Sessions Judge Kamini Lau refused relief to Sushant Mutreja and Nishant Mutreja and said the confidence of the public in the institution of justice would be shaken if such offences are viewed lightly.
“Entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the state are not brought to book,” the judge said, adding that such offences need to be viewed seriously at a time India is facing an economic crisis on account of numerous scams.
The court in its August 2 order noted that the duo allegedly cheated 893 victims of over Rs 126 crore throughout the country by not handing over the possession of the units to them or paying the assured returns as per the contractual relationship.
Furthermore, the court said that Sushant Muttreja was granted bail in 2017 to revive the projects and bring some investment, but it was cancelled after he failed to do so.
“It shall be very difficult to ensure the return of the amount to the investors and the possibility of the applicants fleeing from justice cannot be ruled out,” the judge observed.
The court noted that multiple FIRs were registered by the investors against the two accused of not delivering the possession of the flats and properties booked in Delhi-NCR.
They were arrested in 2016.
According to the Delhi Police, the amount collected by the company was allegedly misappropriated and the funds were diverted to purchase the flats and properties in Ghaziabad and Uttrakhand in the name of subsidiary companies.
The land regarding the other projects was also purchased from the amounts collected from the investors and the amount was also transferred very rapidly and swiftly to the accounts of more than 25 sister firms and associate companies, the investigating officer told the court.
“Both Directors who are also promoters of the company never made any effort to strengthen their projects. The land also did not belong to them. The land allottee company has terminated the agreement with them,” the police added.
The duo, through their counsel Janender Kumar Chumbak, told the court that there was no intention to deceive anyone or to delay any project.
“They always wanted to complete the project. It was just that the market condition did not favour them and situation went beyond the control that ultimately let the delay in delivering the projects,” their advocate said.