Once Cognizance Taken, Court Can Summon Any Person Found Prima Facie Involved: P&H High Court Upholds Summoning of Senior Bureaucrats in ₹1500 Crore Manesar Land Scam

Magistrate Is Not a Post Office: In a significant judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a series of revision petitions challenging the summoning of senior public officials as additional accused in the infamous Manesar Land Scam. The Court upheld the Special CBI Court’s order summoning former IAS officers and other senior officials, stating that the Sessions Court possesses inherent power under Section 193 CrPC to summon any person appearing prima facie involved in the commission of an offence, even if they were earlier cited as prosecution witnesses.

The ruling in Rajeev Arora & Others v. CBI sets an important precedent regarding the scope of judicial discretion at the stage of summoning and clarified that sanction under Section 197 CrPC or Section 19 of the PC Act is not a blanket protection where offences such as cheating and criminal conspiracy are alleged.

The petitions arose from the CBI investigation into the Manesar Land Scam, where landowners were coerced into selling over 350 acres of land at undervalued prices, based on threats of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. After these lands were acquired cheaply, the government subsequently abandoned the acquisition, thereby enabling private developers to reap windfall gains, allegedly in collusion with bureaucrats and political leadership.

A CBI charge sheet filed in 2018 named several accused but left out certain key individuals. On 1 December 2020, the Special Judge (CBI), Panchkula, after going through the material on record, issued summons to additional persons including Rajeev Arora (then MD, HSIIDC), D.R. Dhingra (Director, Industries Department), Kulwant Singh Lamba (Dy. Superintendent, TCPD), and Dhare Singh (Chief Town Planner). They challenged the order before the High Court on procedural and constitutional grounds.

Court's Power to Summon Additional Accused Under Section 193 CrPC

The petitioners argued that once cognizance had been taken in March 2018, the Court could not later summon others without taking cognizance afresh. The High Court rejected this contention:

“Cognizance is taken of the offence, not of the offender… Once cognizance is taken, the Court can summon any person if prima facie involvement is found during trial proceedings.”

The Court reiterated that the power under Section 193 CrPC allows a Sessions Court to summon additional persons suo motu, irrespective of whether they were originally named in the charge sheet or cited as witnesses.

“The Magistrate is not a post office to merely forward the findings of the police… The Court is expected to apply its judicial mind and may disagree with the investigating agency if the material on record warrants such a course.”

Sanction Under Section 19 of PC Act and Section 197 CrPC – Not Mandatory in This Case

The petitioners claimed protection from prosecution due to the absence of prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 197 of the CrPC, especially after the 2018 amendment extending sanction requirements to retired officials.

Rejecting this, the Court clarified: “Cognizance was taken on 16.03.2018, prior to the amendment. The subsequent summoning of accused does not necessitate application of the amended provision retrospectively.”

On the issue of sanction under Section 197 CrPC, the Court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in K. Satwant Singh v. State of Punjab, holding:

“The offence of cheating or abetment thereof has no reasonable connection with the discharge of official duty. Such offences cannot be shielded behind Section 197 CrPC.”

Quoting the Supreme Court: “We have no hesitation in saying that where a public servant commits the offence of cheating or abets another so to cheat, the offence committed by him is not one while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty.”

The High Court conducted a thorough review of the Special Court’s reasoning, which was based on extensive documentary evidence, witness statements, and file notings.

Rajeev Arora – Deferment of Land Award Without Approval

The Special Court found that the deferment of the land award by Rajeev Arora, then MD of HSIIDC, was unauthorized and not based on any valid communication:

“The communication/letter of Department of Town & Country Planning had nothing to do with the deferment... The HSIIDC authorities had taken a decision on their own to defer the award.” (Para 71, Special Court)

The Court relied heavily on the statement of PW-48 P.K. Chaudhary, IAS, who stated: “It is clear that this action of the HSIIDC was not taken with the approval of the state government… The information was sent only after the deferment.”

The deferment, despite repeated reminders by the DRO-cum-LAC, led to lapse of acquisition and allegedly facilitated illegal gains for private entities.

D.R. Dhingra – Non-Action on Acquisition Files and Missing Records

Despite urgent communications from the DRO-cum-LAC requesting ₹285 crores for compensation, D.R. Dhingra, then Director, Industries, allegedly returned the file without action. The relevant file later went missing.

“Neither the Department of Industries nor the Financial Commissioner could produce the file… The file was submitted to seek final instructions for announcing the award, but its disappearance casts serious doubt on the conclusions of the investigating officer.” (Challan Para 16.89)

The Court found the Special Court had sufficient material to draw a prima facie inference of culpability.

Kulwant Singh Lamba – Suppression of Key File

The Special Court found that Kulwant Singh Lamba marked a crucial licence file to the record keeper, effectively burying it after 10.08.2007:

“After that this file remained silent till 09.01.2009.” (Para 78)

The file related to M/s ABW, one of the main beneficiaries after land acquisition was dropped.

Dhare Singh – Approval of Files for CLUs to Ineligible Applicants

As Chief Town Planner, Dhare Singh was alleged to have approved multiple files processed by Lamba, leading to grant of licenses/CLUs to ineligible builders after acquisition was shelved.

The Court agreed with the Special Court that both officers were prima facie on par with the main accused:

“No special circumstance was found to justify their exclusion from prosecution.”

On Right Against Self-Incrimination Under Article 20(3)

Petitioners claimed violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution as they were cited as prosecution witnesses but later summoned as accused.

The Court dismissed the plea: “At the time of giving statements, they were not accused… The Special Court has independently evaluated the material and not relied on their own statements to summon them.”

The High Court firmly upheld the legal competence and judicial discretion of the Special Court, holding that the summoning of petitioners under Section 193 CrPC was fully justified and supported by material on record.

“At the stage of summoning, the Court is not concerned with ultimate conviction. The material, taken at face value, must disclose a strong suspicion — and that threshold has been met.”

The petitions were accordingly dismissed, with the Court reiterating that its observations were only for the purpose of summoning and should not be construed as findings on merits.

Date of Judgment: 15 May 2025