At the Stage of Framing Charge, Presumption Suffices; Suicide Note and Grave Suspicion Enough: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Charge Under Section 306 IPC 173 CrPC | Framing of Charge Marks End of Investigation—Complainant Cannot Reopen Probe Merely by Citing Police Lapses: Bombay High Court Recovery Alone Cannot Prove Guilt: Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Photos, Videos Must Go: Supreme Court Binds Warring Spouses to Clean Up Social Media in Matrimonial Settlement Standard for Bail Under Section 319 CrPC Is Higher Than Framing of Charge, But Short of Conviction: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused Summoned Mid-Trial State Cannot Arbitrarily Deny Subsidies to 'New Industrial Units' by Retrospectively Applying Expansion Caps: Supreme Court Companies Act | Offence Under Section 448 Is Covered Under Section 447: Supreme Court Bars Private Complaint Without SFIO Nod “See-To-It” Obligation Is Not A Guarantee Under Indian Law: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope Of Section 126 ICA In IBC Disputes Mere Employment of Litigant’s Relatives in Police or Court Doesn't Prove Judicial Bias: Supreme Court Sets Aside Transfer of Criminal Case Reserved Candidate Availing Relaxed Standards in Prelims Cannot Migrate to General Quota for Cadre Allocation: Supreme Court Mere Vesting Does Not Mean Possession: Supreme Court Rules ULC Proceedings Abated For Failure To Serve Mandatory Notice To Actual Occupants Contempt of Courts Act | Natural Justice in Administrative Action: Supreme Court Directs West Bengal Govt to Re-Adjudicate Teachers' Arrears Claims Live-In Relationship with Married Man Not a ‘Relationship in the Nature of Marriage’ Under Domestic Violence Act: Bombay High Court Applies Supreme Court Guidelines Income Tax Act | Substitution of Shares held as Stock-in-Trade upon Amalgamation constitutes Taxable Business Income if Commercially Realisable: Supreme Court Judges Cannot Enact Their Own Protocols During Bail Hearings: Supreme Court Sets Aside Sweeping Age Determination Directions In POCSO If There Is Knowledge That Injury Is Likely To Cause Death, But No Intention Falls Under Section 304 Part II:  Supreme Court High Court Ignored POCSO’s Statutory Rigour, Committed Grave Error in Granting Bail: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Gang-Rape Accused Section 22 HSA | Co-Heirs Have Statutory Right of Pre-Emption Even in Urban Property: Punjab & Haryana High Court 138 NI Act | Issuance of Separate Cheques Gives Rise to Independent Causes of Action, Even if Drawn for Same Underlying Transaction: Supreme Court

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

  • by sayum
    10 January 2026 2:26 PM
Contempt of Courts Act | Natural Justice in Administrative Action: Supreme Court Directs West Bengal Govt to Re-Adjudicate Teachers' Arrears Claims
  • by sayum
    10 January 2026 2:26 PM
Mere Vesting Does Not Mean Possession: Supreme Court Rules ULC Proceedings Abated For Failure To Serve Mandatory Notice To Actual Occupants
  • by sayum
    10 January 2026 2:26 PM
Reserved Candidate Availing Relaxed Standards in Prelims Cannot Migrate to General Quota for Cadre Allocation: Supreme Court
  • by sayum
    10 January 2026 2:26 PM
Mere Employment of Litigant’s Relatives in Police or Court Doesn't Prove Judicial Bias: Supreme Court Sets Aside Transfer of Criminal Case
  • by sayum
    10 January 2026 2:25 PM
“See-To-It” Obligation Is Not A Guarantee Under Indian Law: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope Of Section 126 ICA In IBC Disputes
  • by sayum
    10 January 2026 2:25 PM
Companies Act | Offence Under Section 448 Is Covered Under Section 447: Supreme Court Bars Private Complaint Without SFIO Nod