Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |    

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

Similar News