Subsequent Declaration Of Juvenility Does Not Vitiate Conviction On Merits: Supreme Court Borrowers Cannot Ignore Bank Accounting Systems And Suspense Accounts To Claim Arbitrary Reductions In Loan Dues: Supreme Court Re-employed Judicial Officers Cannot Claim 6th Pay Commission Scales: Supreme Court Supreme Court Slams High Court For Erroneously Exercising Review Jurisdiction On 'Mistaken Notion', Restores Employee's ACP Benefits Trademark Infringement: Defendant Can Cross-Examine Plaintiff On Use Of Brand Name Even If Written Statement Is Not On Record: Supreme Court 'Interest And Welfare Of Child Would Be Best Served': Supreme Court Invokes Parens Patriae In Contempt Plea; Revokes Own Custody Order Mere Absence From MCA Records Cannot Absolve Accused Under Section 138 NI Act If Prima Facie Role Is Shown: Punjab & Haryana High Court Incomplete Or Defective Real Estate Application Cannot Claim Deemed Registration Under Section 5(2) Of RERA Act: Orissa High Court Mere Criminal Antecedents Cannot Justify Invoking 'Organized Crime' Offence Under Section 111 BNS Without Fulfilling Statutory Ingredients: Madhya Pradesh High Court 'Testator's Character & Prior Gifts Justify Unequal Distribution': Madras High Court Upholds Holographic Will Minority Status Cannot Arrest Limitation Period For Appeal If Minor Was Represented By Natural Guardian In Original Proceedings: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Admission Of Property Boundaries In Family Partition Deeds Destroys Coparceners' Claim That Land Remains Joint Ancestral Property: Karnataka High Court Mesne Profits Must Reflect Open Market Letting Value Rather Than Static Contractual Rates: Delhi High Court Law Graduates Who Fail To Clear AIBE Within Two Years Cannot Practice In Any Court, Tribunal Or Revenue Authority: Allahabad High Court Bombay High Court Slams 'Growing Tendency' To Bypass GST Appeals, Says 'Natural Justice' Not A Blanket Excuse For Writ Petitions Proportionate Cost Only Can Be Awarded On Decreed Amount, Not On Total Plaint Valuation: Kerala High 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