-
by Deepak Kumar
16 March 2026 5:08 AM
“Due to an act which has not been declared illegal… there cannot be any wrongful gain or wrongful loss”, In a reportable and politically significant judgment Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the order framing charges against former Haryana Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda and Associated Journals Limited in the Panchkula institutional plot re-allotment case.
Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya held that the essential ingredients of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC, cheating under Section 420 IPC, and criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were not even prima facie made out. The Court declared that continuation of prosecution would amount to “abuse of the process of Court.”
The ruling assumes importance for its clear articulation that deviation from policy or legal advice does not automatically translate into corruption unless accompanied by demonstrable dishonest intention or unlawful pecuniary gain.
Background of the Case
The dispute relates to institutional plot No. C-17, Sector 6, Panchkula, originally allotted in 1982 to Associated Journals Limited at ₹91 per square yard on a “no profit no loss” basis for publication of a Hindi newspaper. The plot was resumed in 1992 due to failure to construct within stipulated time. The appeal and revision filed by AJL were dismissed in 1995 and 1996 respectively.
Nearly a decade later, after Bhupinder Singh Hooda became Chief Minister in March 2005, AJL requested restoration of the plot. Despite legal advice suggesting advertisement and fresh allotment, Hooda passed an order on 28.08.2005 directing re-allotment at original rates plus interest. AJL deposited ₹59.39 lakh including interest, commenced construction, and eventually obtained occupation certificate in 2014.
The decision was later placed before the HUDA Authority and was unanimously ratified in its meeting dated 16.05.2006. An audit objection alleging loss of ₹63.08 lakh was ultimately dropped by the Accountant General.
However, in 2017, the CBI registered an FIR alleging conspiracy, cheating and criminal misconduct in the re-allotment.
“There Has To Be Agreement To Commit An Illegal Act” – On Criminal Conspiracy
The High Court meticulously examined the requirement of conspiracy and emphasized that mere suspicion or parallel actions do not establish a “meeting of minds.”
Referring to settled law, the Court observed that conspiracy requires conscious agreement to commit an illegal act. It found no material suggesting coordinated or dishonest design between Hooda and AJL.
“There is no material forthcoming to indicate that it was in concurrence with BSH to fraudulently or dishonestly get the plot restored at original rates.”
The Court noted that AJL never demanded restoration at any specific rate and there was no evidence of pressure, inducement or illicit coordination. The Chief Minister acted independently after seeking official inputs.
“Framing of Charge on Such an Assumption Is Not Known to Law” – On Cheating and Alleged Loss
The prosecution theory rested heavily on alleged financial loss to HUDA by re-allotment at old rates. The Trial Court inferred loss by observing that it was beyond prudence to believe land prices remained static between 1982 and 2005, and referred to later mortgage valuation.
The High Court rejected this reasoning in strong terms:
“Framing of charge on such an assumption is not known to law.”
It held that no material on record established the actual market value of the plot on the date of re-allotment. The audit objection had been dropped. The Authority itself had never quantified or claimed any loss.
The Court made a crucial finding:
“Due to an act which has not been declared illegal, nor has it resulted in any loss to the Authority… there cannot be any unlawful gain to anybody either.”
In the absence of proven wrongful loss or gain, dishonest inducement under Section 420 IPC could not be inferred.
“Violation of Policy Is Not Corruption” – On Section 13(1)(d) PC Act
The central question was whether passing an order contrary to official notings or legal advice constitutes abuse of official position.
Justice Dahiya answered in the negative.
The Court clarified that Section 13(1)(d) requires obtaining a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by abuse of position. There was no allegation of illegal gratification. Hooda did not gain personally. Nor was there any established pecuniary advantage to AJL in absence of proven loss.
“The abuse of position as a public servant presupposes an unlawful act which is not the case as the re-allotment has not been termed illegal by any competent Court or Tribunal.”
Relying on C.K. Jaffer Sharief v. State (CBI), the Court reiterated that even if a decision violates departmental norms or appears imprudent, it does not ipso facto establish dishonest intention.
“Passing an order against the policies, guidelines or opinions… cannot be a basis to attribute dishonest intention.”
Ratification by Authority “Gives Validity from the Date It Was Passed”
A pivotal aspect was the unanimous ratification of re-allotment by the HUDA Authority.
The Court observed: “The ratification gives validity to the order from the date it has been passed.”
It found it impermissible for the investigating agency to treat ratification as sham merely on the basis of subsequent statements of officers. The Authority had full power to reverse the decision but consciously chose not to.
On Mortgage Allegations
The CBI also relied on subsequent mortgaging of the property to suggest criminal intention.
The Court dismissed this argument outright, noting that the mortgage was with prior permission of the Authority and did not violate any allotment condition.
“Mortgaging the property… cannot possibly have any bearing on the act of re-allotment.”
Prosecution Held Unsustainable
After examining the material, the High Court concluded that the Trial Court had failed to evaluate whether essential ingredients of the alleged offences were made out. Charges were framed on conjectures rather than concrete material.
“There is no ground to proceed against them. Continuation of prosecution will be an abuse of the process of Court.”
The orders dated 16.04.2021 framing charges and dismissing the discharge application were set aside, and all subsequent proceedings were quashed. The petitioners stood discharged.
The judgment stands as a significant reaffirmation that criminal prosecution cannot be sustained merely because a policy decision is controversial or contrary to official advice. Criminal law, the Court made clear, demands proof of dishonest intent and unlawful gain—not speculative assumptions or retrospective suspicion.
Date of Decision: 25 February 2026
