Chandigarh, February 26 – The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the criminal charges against former Haryana Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda and Associated Journals Limited in connection with the re-allotment of a plot in Panchkula.
A bench of Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya overturned the April 2021 order of a special CBI court, which had framed charges against the accused and dismissed their pleas for discharge.
In its ruling, the high court observed that the evidence presented did not even prima facie establish the essential elements of the alleged offenses against the petitioners. It held that there were no sufficient grounds to proceed against them in the matter.
"Continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of the court's process. The impugned orders, dated April 16, 2021, which framed charges against the petitioners and dismissed the discharge application, are hereby set aside, along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, and the petitioners are discharged," according to the February 25 order.
The case involves the allotment of a plot in Sector 6, Panchkula, by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) to Associated Journals Limited (AJL) in 1982. The plot was resumed in 1992 after construction was not completed within the stipulated period. HUDA dismissed AJL's appeals in 1995 and 1996.
After Hooda became Chief Minister in 2005, the plot was re-allotted to AJL at the original rates. During the BJP's tenure in the state, the state vigilance bureau registered a case in 2016, which was later taken over by the CBI. It was alleged that the re-allotment caused financial loss to the public exchequer.
In April 2021, the special CBI court had ordered framing of charges under Sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act against Hooda and AJL, the publisher of National Herald.
Hooda subsequently challenged the CBI court order by approaching the high court.
In its ruling, the high court observed that the Haryana Urban Development Authority's decision cannot be deemed inconsequential and false, based on subsequent statements from its members, who unanimously concurred with it without any demur.
"This is manifestly illegal and defies all logic. Furthermore, the fact that the CBI chose to charge only Hooda, the authority's chairman, while ignoring other members who ratified the decision, also raises doubts about its integrity and the nature of the investigation.
"This lends credence to the assertions made by counsel R S Cheema that Hooda was framed in the case for ulterior motives," the judge observed.
The court observed that the re-allotment of the plot to AJL had been unanimously ratified by the authority, and it has not been reviewed or recalled, nor declared illegal by any court.
"The allotment is valid as of today. It has also not been cancelled or declared illegal or arbitrary. Instead, AJL has completed construction and obtained a certificate of occupation from the authority on August 14, 2014," according to the order.
No grievance has been raised regarding any loss to the authority; nor has AJL or any other accused been asked to compensate for any perceived harm. Even government auditors have dropped their objections, as stated in the order.
The court also observed that the FIR was lodged by the vigilance based on a source report, and not on a complaint by the authority.
"Ignoring these vital facts, the CBI has taken upon itself to declare the re-allotment illegal, citing violation of the 1977 Act, which, in its view, would attract criminal liability under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act invoked against the petitioners.
"It is incomprehensible how the investigating agency can unilaterally consider the re-allotment of the plot unlawful and proceed to register a criminal case based on this. This is absolutely illegal and contrary to any known legal procedure," as per the order.
The court observed that to establish criminal liability and frame charges, there must be evidence on record to enable the court to form an opinion regarding the existence of the elements of the alleged offense.
"In this case, there is no evidence to establish any agreement between the accused to intentionally defraud the authority by re-allotting the plot in question.
"Although AJL has sought the restoration of the plot, there is no evidence to indicate that this was done in concurrence with Hooda to fraudulently obtain the plot at the original rates," it said.