Delhi HC refuses to quash criminal case against Supertech executives

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against Supertech chairman and managing director Ram Kishor Arora and other executives at the builder in a case linked to the Hill Town residential project in Sohna, Haryana.

Arora and other executives of the financially stretched builder are facing criminal charges over allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust, diversion of funds, discontinuance of payment of the pre-equated monthly instalment, and failure to deliver flats within time.

Justice Madhu Jain upheld the trial court’s 2025 order to take cognizance of the criminal charges against Supertech’s top officers. The judge said the prosecution’s case was not based merely upon the assertion that possession was delayed by the company and its top officers, but also upon the manner in which the transactions were allegedly structured, representations made to homebuyers, and the continued collection of funds from buyers.


“Whether these circumstances ultimately establish dishonest intention from the very beginning is a matter which can only be determined after the evidence is led. 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,” the judge said.’

Where the allegations, taken at their face value, disclose circumstances which prima facie require investigation and adjudication in respect of alleged inducement, receipt and utilisation of funds, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely because the transaction also has a contractual element, Justice Jain said.

The existence of a criminal conspiracy is ordinarily a matter which is required to be inferred from the conduct of the parties and the circumstances brought on record, the HC said. Direct evidence of an agreement is seldom available, it said, adding that whether the material ultimately establishes a meeting of minds between the accused persons is a matter to be examined upon appreciation of the evidence and cannot ordinarily be conclusively determined in proceedings in the high court.