₹4.84 Crore Alleged Property Fraud in Ahmedabad: Two FIRs Against Businessman Couple; Past Cheque Bounce Conviction and Bank Disputes Also on Record
Ahmedabad: A major case of alleged property fraud involving ₹4.84 crore has come to light in Gujarat’s Ahmedabad city. Two separate FIRs have been registered at Navrangpura Police Station against businessman Bharatkumar Pranlal Popat and his wife, Harshaben Bharatkumar Popat, over allegations of cheating businessmen through property investments, plot sales and land deals.
According to the complainants, the accused allegedly collected substantial sums of money by promising property transactions and investment opportunities but failed to complete the deals as agreed or return the full amounts.
The matter has attracted further attention because available court records also mention Bharatkumar Popat in an earlier cheque bounce case, property-related disputes involving banks and other judicial proceedings. However, these are separate legal matters and should not be treated as judicial proof of the allegations made in the current ₹4.84 crore case.
Two FIRs, Two Businessmen and Alleged Fraud Worth ₹4.84 Crore
According to the two complaints registered at Navrangpura Police Station, the alleged fraud relates to separate property transactions.
The first complaint concerns an alleged fraud of ₹2.34 crore in the name of selling residential plots in Manipur village of Sanand taluka. The second complaint alleges that ₹2.50 crore was collected in connection with a land transaction in the Asarwa area.
Together, the two complaints involve an alleged amount of ₹4.84 crore. Investigators will now have to establish the roles of the individuals involved, trace the financial transactions and verify the legal status of the properties concerned.
First Case: Alleged ₹2.34 Crore Fraud Over Plots 37 and 38 in Sanand
The first FIR was registered following a complaint by Sanjay Jayantilal Mehta, a 63-year-old businessman residing in Bopal.
According to the complaint, a property deal was negotiated for plots numbered 37 and 38 in the ‘Surdhara Residential Plots’ scheme, located in Manipur village of Sanand taluka.
The complainant alleged that the accused told him they had purchased the plots from the builder, Suvas Infrastructure Private Limited, and intended to sell them further. The names mentioned in this complaint include Bharatkumar Pranlal Popat, his wife Harshaben Bharatkumar Popat and Vilesh Prafullchandra Sheth.
The complainant alleged that he paid ₹1.25 crore as an advance for the plots. It was reportedly agreed that the remaining consideration would be adjusted through the supply of building materials within eight months.
According to the complaint, the accused initially supplied some building materials and made cash payments, maintaining the complainant’s confidence. However, this arrangement allegedly continued for only the first three months. Thereafter, the complainant was allegedly given repeated assurances that the outstanding amount would be settled and the transaction completed.
The complainant claims that an amount of approximately ₹2.34 crore remains unpaid.
Another allegation concerns a security cheque provided during the transaction. The complainant alleged that the cheque was not honoured because payment had been stopped. He also claimed that assurances were repeatedly given about providing another property, but the matter remained unresolved.
Second Case: ₹2.50 Crore Allegedly Collected Despite Mortgage on Asarwa Land
The second FIR was registered on the complaint of Parth Kamleshbhai Doshi, a 37-year-old businessman residing in Satellite, Ahmedabad.
According to the complaint, Bharatkumar Popat allegedly offered to arrange a non-agricultural land deal at a comparatively low price. The land was located within the limits of Muthiya village in the Asarwa taluka.
The property was reportedly associated with Karnavati Auto Hub Private Limited and its proprietor, Parth Barot. The complaint names Bharatkumar Pranlal Popat, Parth Barot, Jil Bharat Popat and Parag Shah, among others.
The complainant alleged that the land had already been mortgaged to the Aditya Birla Group. Despite this, the transaction was allegedly taken forward without disclosing the property’s mortgage status.
According to the complaint, the businessman paid a total of ₹2.50 crore through online transactions, bank transfers, the angadia channel and cash.
To give the transaction a formal appearance, a Banakhat (agreement to sell) was reportedly executed on November 18, 2025. A public notice concerning the land was also allegedly published in the complainant’s name, giving him the impression that the transaction was progressing legally.
However, the complainant later came across a public notice in a newspaper concerning the auction of the same property. He then allegedly discovered that the land had already been mortgaged.
The complainant claims that the mortgage was not cleared and the ₹2.50 crore paid towards the transaction was also not returned.
Earlier Cheque Bounce Case: Bharatkumar Popat Was Convicted in 2018
Available court documents also refer to an earlier criminal case involving Bharatkumar Pranlal Popat under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deals with cheque dishonour.
The complaint was filed by Amit Popatlal Parmar in Criminal Case No. 631/2013 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Ahmedabad.
On March 31, 2018, the court convicted Bharatkumar Popat and sentenced him to one year of simple imprisonment. It also directed him to pay compensation equivalent to the cheque amount to the complainant within 60 days. The order further provided for an additional three months of simple imprisonment in the event of non-payment of the compensation.
Popat subsequently challenged the decision by filing Criminal Appeal No. 140/2018 before the Ahmedabad City Civil and Sessions Court.
On March 2, 2020, the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 35, Ahmedabad, dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
The appellate court examined evidence relating to the cheque signature, the settlement agreement between the parties and the legal responsibility for payment. The defence presented on behalf of the accused was not accepted by the court.
According to an available High Court case-status document, Bharatkumar Popat subsequently filed Criminal Revision Application No. 7646/2020. The available record shows the revision application as pending. Its current status and final outcome require separate verification.
Bank and Property Disputes Also Mentioned in Court Records
Available judicial documents also refer to earlier banking and property-related disputes involving Bharatkumar Popat and members of his business family.
One such matter relates to Civil Suit No. 760/2003 before the Ahmedabad City Civil Court, involving Adarsh Co-operative Bank Limited and other parties.
In the case records, Harshaben Bharatbhai Popat was identified as the proprietor of Benefit Publication, while Bharatkumar Pranlal Popat was identified as the proprietor of JIL Printery.
The suit was decided on November 26, 2015. Subsequently, First Appeal No. 2056/2016 was registered before the Gujarat High Court. The available case-status record shows the appeal as pending.
Another matter relates to Special Civil Application No. 17298/2018 before the Gujarat High Court, involving Shri Gayatri Buildcon and Allahabad Bank. Harshaben Bharatkumar Popat and Bharatkumar Popat were listed among the respondents.
In that petition, the builder alleged that registered documents had been executed for the sale of six flats, but out of the total sale consideration of ₹1.80 crore, only ₹90 lakh had been received, leaving another ₹90 lakh outstanding.
The petitioner also contended that the flats were mortgaged with the bank and that the bank had initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act.
On December 11, 2018, the Gujarat High Court declined to interfere in the matter. The court observed that the main proceedings were pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), where the parties could raise their legal contentions. The High Court did not deliver a final decision on the merits of the dispute.
Another available document refers to Special Civil Application No. 13108/2018, filed by Bharatkumar Pranlal Popat against Dena Bank. On August 27, 2018, the Gujarat High Court dismissed the petition after the petitioner chose not to press it, with the alternative legal remedy available to him being noted. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.
Several Questions Now Before the Police
The two complaints have raised questions about property ownership, the authenticity of transaction documents, disclosure of mortgage liabilities and the movement of funds in the alleged deals.
While two businessmen have alleged financial losses amounting to ₹4.84 crore, the available judicial records also refer to an earlier cheque dishonour conviction and separate banking and property disputes involving the concerned individuals.
However, each matter has its own facts and legal status. Previous court proceedings cannot, by themselves, establish the allegations made in the current FIRs.
The key questions before investigators include the actual financial trail of the alleged ₹4.84 crore, the legal status of the properties at the time of the transactions and the specific roles played by the individuals named in the complaints.
The findings of the police investigation and the evidence presented before the court will ultimately determine the facts of the case.