Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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