P&H High Court Gives Clean Chit To Ex-CM Bhupinder Hooda, Sonia Gandhi's AJIL Company In Panchkula Land Allotment Case

The Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed charges against former Haryana CM Bhupinder Singh Hooda and Company owned by Congress leader Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi Associated Journals Limited (AJL) in case pertaining to irregularities in re-allotment of land in Panchkula.

Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya said, "The allotment is valid as on date, it has also not been cancelled, nor declared illegal or arbitrary. Instead, the AJL after payment of re-allotment price as well as the extension fee has raised construction, and has been given occupation certificate by the Authority on 14.08.2014. No grievance has been raised regarding any loss to the Authority; nor has the AJL or any other accused been called upon to make good any perceived harm. Even the Government auditors have dropped their objection regarding financial loss to the Authority on account of this re-allotment.”

The Court opined that "Continuation of prosecution will be an abuse of the process of Court.”

“Consequently, both the petitions are allowed. The impugned orders, dated 16.04.2021, framing charges against the petitioners as well as dismissing the discharge application, are hereby set aside along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, and the petitioners stand discharged," it added.

The Court pointed that Hooda's decision had not been questioned by anyone, including the State government and HUDA and the FIR was registered on the basis of a source.

"Ignoring these vital facts of the matter, the CBI has taken upon itself to term the re-allotment illegal being violative of the 1977 Act which would, in its view, attract criminal liability under the provisions of the IPC and the PC Act invoked against the petitioners. It is unfathomable as to how the investigating agency can consider the re-allotment of plot unlawful on its own, and proceed to register a criminal case on the basis. This is absolutely illegal, and far from any procedure known to law," the Court said.

"Although there has been a request from the AJL seeking restoration of the plot to it, there is no material forthcoming to indicate that it was in concurrence with Hooda to fraudulently or dishonestly get the plot restored at original rates," it added.

The bench noted that there were no evidence of AJL asking the re-allotent of the plot at a particular price. It added that the entire amount of re-allotment as demanded had been duly paid by the AJL, including the extension fee.

Quashing the charges the Coury said, mere because statements of some officers of the Authority or Government have been recorded to the effect that re-allotment of the plot at current rates would have fetched more money to the Authority, it cannot form a basis to contend that any loss has actually been caused.

The Court concluded that “The statements are without any factual basis. To claim on this premise that the re-allotment caused any loss to the Authority, is fictional which cannot afford any ground to frame charge for commission of the alleged offences.”

Mr. Sartej Singh Narula, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Mayur Singla, Advocate, and Dr. Amardeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRR No.649 of 2021.

Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Sumanjit Kaur, Advocate, Mr. Siddharth Bhukkal, Advocate, Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Prince Bharol, Advocate, and Ms. Vibhuti Manchanda, Advocate.

Mr. Pardeep Singh Poonia, Senior Advocate, withMr. Pulkit Dhanda, Advocate, Mr. Dharampal Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRR No.650 of 2021.

Mr. Ravi Kamal Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent-CBI.

Title: AJL v CBI

Click here to read order