Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal

Delhi High Court Refused To Quash FIR Charges in Land Allotment Scam: Grave Suspicion Justifies Trial

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling today, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, dismissed the petition filed in W.P.(CRL) 1607/2019 & CRL.M.A. 11731/2019 by Prem Bhutani & ANR against the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The Court upheld the framing of charges concerning a complex case of alleged forgery, cheating, and fraudulent land allotment by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).

The case, whichh involves the revival of the defunct Arvind Cooperative Group Housing Society and subsequent land allotment by the DDA, has been mired in controversy with accusations of forgery and manipulation of bank transactions. The petitioners, Prem Bhutani and another, challenged the impugned orders on charge dated 31.10.2018 and the framing of charges dated 04.12.2018 related to this high-profile case.

Justice Gedela, in his ruling, emphasized the gravity of the allegations and the need for a thorough trial. He was quoted as saying, “At the stage of framing of charges, the courts are to consider in general the allegations and the documents/evidence on record and not delve into the details of evidence or conduct a mini trial.” This statement underlines the court’s position on the importance of due process and the need for a detailed examination of the evidence at the trial stage.

The Court’s decision was influenced by the principles of law governing the framing of charges, particularly focusing on the existence of ‘grave suspicion’ based on the material produced by the prosecution. The Court’s analysis pointed to a larger conspiracy, extending beyond mere fraudulent land allotment, involving intricate acts of omission and commission by the petitioners.

Represented by Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Advocate, along with a team including Dr. Sakshit Bhardwaj, Ms. Sunita Gupta, Ms. Punya Rekha Angara, Mr. Siddharth S. Yadav, and Mr. Prateek Bhalla, the petitioners argued their role as mere financiers. However, the court found the allegations against them to be significantly grave, particularly considering their involvement in the manipulation of bank accounts and control over the Society through their employees.

Decision: 30.11.2023

PREM BHUTANI & ANR. VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Latest Legal News