IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-45210 of 2024 Reserved on: January 20, 2026 Date of Decision: April 17, 2026 Vikash Singh & another ..... PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS State of Haryana & others ..... RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA PRESENT: - Mr. Deepam Raghav, Advocate, with Mr. Dhruv Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate, for respondent Nos.3 to 5.

SUBHAS MEHLA, J

1. This present petition has been filed impugning order dated 08.08.2024 (Annexure P-3) whereby eviction orders were passed against the petitioners, and respondent nos. 3 and 4 were directed to be put in possession of the property in dispute, by respondent No.2-Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Collector, Badshapur, Gurugram, in case No.19/SDO/B, titled ‘Devinder Budhwar & another vs. Sanjay Chauhan and another’, alongwith consequential proceedings.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos.3 and 4 offered a lucrative proposition to the petitioners, to acquire M/s Luxury Infrastructure Private Limited (for short, ‘Company’). Accordingly, a deal was struck between the petitioners, private respondents and the previous Directors of the Company, in the form of an contract/Memorandum of Understanding dated 09.06.2021 (for short, ‘MOU dated 09.06.2021’), whereby the Company was to be acquired by both petitioners alongwith respondent Nos.3 and 4, and all the proprietary rights and interests in the business as well as in the land/ property owned by the business, were to be transferred in favouor of the petitioners and respondent nos. 3 & 4 for a consideration of ₹ 9 crore, to be paid to the erstwhile Directors of the Company. Accordingly, petitioners alongwith respondent Nos.3 and 4 became the Directors of Company, and started managing its affairs. Petitioners, in terms of MOU dated 09.06.2021, were required to develop the acquired land into a residential complex and bear all the expenses for its development and construction, apart from complying with its statutory formalities. The constructed flats were intended to be sold to prospective buyers, and revenue generation was estimated at ₹29 crores, and tentative profit was estimated at ₹11 crores.

3. Although petitioner no.1 was willing to fulfill his part of the obligation as per the MOU, however, he was approached by Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 to relinquish his share in lieu of ₹5.5 crores, as well as six flats. The motive for seeking resignation of the petitioner was that the respondent no.3 wanted to introduce his brother, respondent no.4, as Director of the Company. Unsuspecting of any malafide intent, the petitioner agreed to resign from the position of Director of the Company. In lieu of the promised consideration, a cheque bearing number 000245 dated 25.04.2022 amounting to ₹5,50,00,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank, Rattan Garden Branch, was issued in favour of the petitioner, to be which was to be encashed within a span of one year. In addition, six flats bearing Nos.202, 306, 307, 401, 406 and 410 in the said project were allotted. As per the MOU, in the eventuality of dishonour of the cheque so issued, the whole settlement shall be rendered null and void, ensuing which petitioner would be entitled to claim all the relinquished rights and interests in the Company, thereby implying that petitioner shall not only be the Director of the Company again but would also automatically assume co-ownership in the entire project.

The said cheque, when presented in bank, was dishonored due to ‘insufficient funds’ in the account. Consequently, a legal notice of demand dated 07.05.2022 was served upon the concerned respondents but they did not pay any heed. Respondent Nos.3 and 4, in order to jeopardize the financial interests of petitioners were in process of selling or creating third-party interest in the said residential project, apart from withdrawing substantial amount from the account of