It said that keeping in view the gravity of thr offence and its impact on the number of investors, it would be appropriate that the case be investigated by a senior officer.
The matter should be supervised by the deputy commissioner of police concerned of the EOW.
Special Judge Kamini Lau's direction came during the hearing of a bail plea of one of the arrested directors of the real estate firm.
During the proceedings, the court was informed by the counsel for the accused director and complainants that they were in the process of finalising a settlement.
Advocate Ajay Verma, appearing for accused director Ram Chander Soni, sought bail, saying it was purely a civil dispute and that he was willing to settle the issue and ensure that the entire project was delivered to the buyers.
The court, in its oral observation, made it clear that it was not inclined to grant bail to the director till the time he returned the money of all the investors.
"Keeping in view the gravity of the offence and the extent and impact on the number of investors who have come to the court and also those who have approached various other forums including the Delhi High Court in company petitions, it is proper that the investigation in this case be entrusted to some senior officer to be duly supervised by the DCP himself," it nsaid.
The court directed that the details of the assets of the directors and the company be placed before the court on August 28, the next date of the hearing.
It also asked the DCP as to why a single FIR had been registered on the 200 complaints of investors, each one being a separate transaction, when as per law only three complaints could be clubbed in one FIR.
The investigating officer (IO), in a report, said that till 2008, there was no construction activity at the site and when the complainants confronted the company officials, they were informed that possession would be given by the end of 2010, but they had not got possession till now.
The report said according to documents supplied by the firm, it received investments of over Rs 540 crore from the investors on the pretext of setting up a mall and a valley, among others.
The officer submitted that the company or the directors had not completed the project in 10 years and there was a remote possibility of it in the near future.
They were neither returning the money nor giving possession to the buyers, he added.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
