P&H High Court Refuses Withdrawal Of M3M Director's Plea To Quash Bribery FIR Involving Trial Judge, Questions Handling Of Case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday (May 27) refused to allow withdrawing of a petition filed for quashing of a 2023 FIR against M3M company's director Roop Bansal accused of conspiring to bribe a Trial Court judge.

Bansal was accused under Sections 7,8,11,13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC.

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu declined the request of Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for Bansal.

"The way this case has been conducted...I would decline your request to withdraw it," added the Chief Justice.

Singhvi argued that, "when an accused has right to file a petition under Section 482, he should also have right to withdraw it." However, the Court refused to consider the same. 

It is pertinent to note that the present FIR for quashing was firstly listed before Justice Anoop Chitkara in October 2023, however as per the orders the case was adjourned on from the beginning either on request of the petitioner or the respondent-State counsel. Justice Chitkara did not stay the trial proceeding during the hearing of quashing petition.

The last hearing took place on 12 September 2024 wherein, Justice Chitkara stated in the order, "It is clarified that the matter shall not be further adjourned due to non- availability of the State counsel" and the matter was listed for October 1. However, the roster of the judge was changed.

Thereafter it was heard by another single judge bench, Justice N.S Shekhawat who recused from the case  and the case was then listed before Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul. The petitioner sought withdrawal of the case before her and the same was allowed.

"Learned senior counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition, with liberty to file afresh with better particularly. Dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty aforesaid," stated the order.

After that the fresh plea was heard by another single judge bench and it was withdrawn by the Chief Justice on the day it was listed for pronouncement, following the receipt of a complaint.

The Chief Justice in its order had then said that the decision was in the "interest of the institution" and to "protect the reputation" of the judge.

During the hearing today, Singhvi submitted that, "no case of M3M was pending at the (relevant time) before the concerned judge".

Singhvi also argued that a person can't be prosecuted under Section 120-B for conspiracy alone. However, there was no sanction under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the judge allegedly involved in the bribery. "...the case of bribery the heart of the case is the conspiracy. There cannot be a Brive receiver without a bribe giver," he argued. 

Singhvi further objected intervention of ED in the case stating that it was without any locus as the case involves Anti-Corruption Bureau. "ED cannot be omnipresent...it cannot run any predicate offence."

Adding that, "I don't want to risk observation on trial," Singhvi requested to withdraw the plea but the same was declined.

Considering the paucity of time, the matter was adjourned to 29 May.

Senior Panel Counsel for UOI Lokesh Narang and Senior Panel Counsel Zoheb Hossain represented the Enforcement Directorate 

Case Tite: ROOP BANSAL V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.