Gurugram Land Scam: Punjab & Haryana HC Rejects Additional Accused's Challenge To Summoning Order, Finds Prima Facie 'Active Role In Conspiracy'

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the order summoning an additional accused to face trial in the Gurugram land acquisition scam, allegedly involving then Haryana Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda and others from the Industrial Model Township.Justice Kuldeep Tiwari opined that there are sufficient incriminating evidence which require the Petitioner- Amit Katyal, who was the Director of the company allegedly involved in the scam, to face trial along with other co-accused."Prima facie, this Court also found incriminating evidence against the present petitioner, who since the inception and till the end, played an active role in conspiracy with the other co-accused, not only to obtain LOI, but also to execute the collaboration agreements, Special Power of Attorney, General Power of Attorney, with the erstwhile landowners and caused financial huge loss to them," added the Court.As per the FIR, certain private companies conspired with the former CM and the Minister In-charge of Directorate of Town and Country Planning during 2007-12 to acquire private lands, including agricultural lands at low rates in the name of "public purpose". It is alleged that these lands were later released by the Government to benefit the private builders, resulting in huge loss to the farmers and the State exchequer. The CBI had filed its chargesheet in the matter, invoking charges under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC, 1860, and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against 17 known persons. This included Hooda- the former Haryana CM, the then Chief Administrator of HUDA, Director of Urban Estate and the Director of Town and Country Planning Department of Haryana. The chargesheet also arrayed some unknown private persons as well as public servants.At the time of taking cognizance in 2021, the trial Court had directed the Investigating Officer to file an affidavit, specifically mentioning as to how and under what circumstances the name of the present petitioner i.e. Amit Katyal, was not included in the array of the accused persons.In pursuance to the directions, an affidavit was filed by the IO where after, the CBI Court summoned Katyal as an additional accused in exercise of its powers under Section 319 of CrPC.After examining the submissions, the High Court referred to R.N. Aggarwal vs. R.C. Bansal and others' (2014) to underscore that the Special Judge may take cognizance of the offence without the accused being committed to him for trial, and the Court of Special Judge shall be deemed to be a Court of Sessions."...the Special Court, CBI, has power of original jurisdiction, who could issue the summons under Section 193 of Cr.P.C., on the basis of the records transmitted to him as a result of committal order passed by the learned Magistrate. The Special Judge can do so in case he finds sufficient incriminating evidence against any other person, who has not been arrayed in the array of accused, by the investigating officer concerned," observed Justice Tiwari.The judge analysed the material available on record against Katyal and found that he remained an active Director in the company in the year 2010, when the licence for developing 151.569 acres plotted colony was granted to the accused company.Justice Tiwari highlighted that there was no illegality committed by the trial Court in asking the IO about the reasons for not impleading Katyal in the array of accused. The Court also noted that the trial Court had considered the incriminating evidence available on the chargesheet and only then proceeded to pass the impugned summoning order.Considering that prima facie sufficient incriminating evidence was present against Katyal, the Court dismissed his plea. Mr. Vinod Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Himanshu Arora, Advocate Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate and Mr. Sumit Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner.Mr. Ravi Kamal Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-CBI.Title: Amit Katyal v. CBICitation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 04Click here to read/download the order

Gurugram Land Scam: Punjab & Haryana HC Rejects Additional Accused's Challenge To Summoning Order, Finds Prima Facie 'Active Role In Conspiracy'

Aiman J. Chishti

Tags