Back
High Court Halts FIR Onslaught on Realty CEO: Only One Case to Proceed
In a significant interim relief amid allegations of real estate irregularities, the has stayed police proceedings in multiple FIRs against Dhruv Dutt Sharma, founder and CEO of Gurugram's 32nd Avenue commercial project. Justice Subhas Mehla directed that investigations continue only in the first FIR (No. 262 of 2025, under at Civil Lines Police Station), while halting action in the others until the next hearing on .
Sharma, arrested in , approached the court challenging what his counsel described as a blatant misuse of criminal law to settle civil rent disputes.
From Rent Rows to FIR Flood: The 32nd Avenue Saga
32nd Avenue, a dining and entertainment hub in Gurugram, lies at the heart of this controversy. Sharma faces accusations of selling the same commercial unit to over 25 buyers between 2021 and 2025, alongside failures to pay rent for units booked as early as . The first FIR stemmed from a complaint over unpaid rent since .
Five separate FIRs were registered—one for each of five shops in the same complex—prompting Sharma's petition (CRWP-3145-2026). He was arrested shortly after, with counsel arguing the FIRs were timed to ensure perpetual custody: bail in one leads straight to arrest in the next.
Petitioner's Plea: 'Civil Dispute, Criminal Harassment'
, assisted by a team including
and
, contended that no offence under the
was made out.
"It is only a dispute between the landlord and tenant regarding non-payment of rent,"
Rai submitted.
"If the landlord is aggrieved, then he can file an appropriate petition before the concerned authority."
The multiple FIRs, they argued, exemplified , designed purely to harass Sharma. They invoked Supreme Court precedent in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja (2026 SCC OnLine SC 19), which curbs misuse of criminal machinery for civil ends, and a coordinate bench order in Ashish Bhalla v. State of Haryana (CRM-M-17130-2025, decided ).
State's Short Response, Long Adjournment
appeared on advance notice, seeking time to file a reply. The court obliged, issuing notices to private respondents (complainants) returnable on .
Court's Sharp Scalpel: Distinguishing Civil Wrongs from Crimes
Justice Mehla swiftly recognized the pattern of harassment in registering identical FIRs for interconnected shops in one complex. While allowing the primary FIR—alleging (Section 409 ), (420 ), and (120-B )—to proceed, the court barred action in the rest.
This aligns with judicial caution against converting rent defaults or commercial disputes into criminal prosecutions, preserving resources for genuine crimes and protecting against "" tactics.
Key Observations
"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a as no offence under BNS is made out, it is only a dispute between the landlord and tenant regarding non payment of rent..."
"...there are five shops in one shopping complex and five different FIRs have been registered against the petitioner just to harass him just so that if he gets bail in one FIR, then he will be arrested in second and so on...""In the meanwhile, except the first FIR No.262 of 2025, under Sections 409, 420 and 120-B , registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Gurugram, the State is directed not to proceed with other FIRs, till the next date of hearing ."
Ripple Effects: A Check on Overzealous Policing?
This order offers Sharma breathing room, potentially averting arrests in the stayed FIRs and underscoring that landlord-tenant woes belong in civil forums, not police stations. For real estate developers facing similar multi-buyer or rent disputes, it signals courts' readiness to intervene against redundant FIRs.
The final hearing could quash the FIRs entirely or refine the probe's scope, setting a precedent for Haryana's bustling commercial sector.
