Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.
The Associated Journals Limited - Petitioner
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation - Respondent
CRR No.649 of 2021 (O&M), CRR No.650 of 2021 (O&M)
Decided On : 25-02-2026
JUDGMENT :
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.
These two petitions are being decided together as the petitioners herein are accused in the same transaction concerning which the FIR in question has been lodged.
2. The petitions have been filed for setting aside the orders dated 16.04.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Panchkula, whereby charges have been framed against the petitioners-accused, and the application filed on behalf of the petitioner Bhupinder Singh Hooda (hereinafter referred to as, ‘BSH’) under Section 239 read with Section 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’), seeking discharge in case FIR No. RC CHG 2017 A0008, dated 05.04.2017, registered under Sections 120-B, 420 IPC, and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PC Act’), at Police Station ACB, CBI, Chandigarh, has been dismissed.
Factual background
2.1. This matter pertains to allotment of institutional plot no. C-17, Sector 6, Panchkula, by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA/Authority), now known as the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran. The case was initially registered as FIR No. 03, dated 05.05.2016, under Sections 409, 420, 120-B IPC, and Section 13 of the PC Act, at Police Station State Vigilance Bureau, Panchkula. It was, however, transferred to the CBI by State Government, and was registered as FIR No. RC CHG 2017 A0008, dated 05.04.2017, under Sections 120-B, 420 IPC, and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, at Police Station ACB, CBI, Chandigarh, Annexure P-1, which reads as under:
PROFORMA FOR MAKING REFERENCE TO CENTRAL GOVERNMENT FOR INVESTIGATION OF FIR NO.03, DATED 05.05.2016 REGISTERED AT POLICE STATION STATE VIGILANCE BUREAU PANCHKULA, DISTRICT PANCHKULA, HARYANA THROUGH THE CBI.
| 1 | Brief facts of the case to be enquired | A source report regarding wrongful reallotment of resumed institutional plot No. C-17, Sector 06, Panchkula was received in the Vigilance Department on which comments from the Additional Chief Secretary to Govt. Haryana, Town & Country Planning Department were obtained. From a perusal of the source report and keeping in view the comments of the Town & Country Planning Department, it was found that Institutional plot No.C-17, Sector-6, Panchkula was allotted to M/s Associated Journals Ltd. (AJL), New Delhi by the Haryana Urban Development Authority on 24.08.1982 and the possession of the plot was delivered on 30.08.1982. The above said firm made a request to the then Chairman, HUDA, to make ten annual instalments of the balance payment of the plot which was accepted by the then Chairman, HUDA on 12.09.1983. As per the terms and conditions of allotment, it was necessary for the company to start the construction over the plot within six months from the date of delivery of possession and to complete the construction within two years. The company failed to raise the construction within the given time. The Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula resumed the plot on 30.10.1992 and made refund to the said company after deducting 10% of the total deposit amount on 10.11.1995. The company preferred an appeal before the Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula against the order of the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula on 30.10.1992, who dismissed the appeal vide his orders dated 26.07.1995. Upon this, the company filed a Revision Petition before the Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Haryana, Town and Country Planning Department against the orders of the Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula dated 26.07.1995, who dismissed the Revision Petition vide his orders dated 10.10.1996. Sh. Abid Hussain requested the then Chairman, HUDA to restore the plot on 14.03.1998, upon which the Chairman, HUDA intimated Sh Abid Hussain that since the construction was not |
(1) Normally, criminal proceedings should not be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when after a thorough investigation charge-sheet has been filed – At the stage of discharge an....
The court clarified that prima facie evidence suggests adequate grounds exist to proceed with charges, and that the responsibility for plot allotments must be appropriately examined in trial.
The principle of unjust enrichment and the doctrine of legitimate expectations were central to the court's decision, emphasizing the obligation of the Development Authority to act fairly and reasonab....
Applicability of Prevention of Corruption Act was not restricted to local authorities but referred to any public body having public or statutory duties to perform and which earned on activities of pu....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
