Punjab and Haryana High Court again rejects request for withdrawal of plea in trial judge bribery case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday once again declined to permit withdrawal of a plea seeking quashing of a bribery case involving a trial court judge and listed it for hearing in July [Roop Bansal vs State of Haryana]..The case registered by Anti-Corruption Bureau of Haryana accuses judicial officer Sudhir Parmar (Special Judge CBI/PMLA) of extending undue favours to owners of M3M and IREO Group in a money laundering case. M3M Group Director Roop Bansal, a co-accused, has sought quashing of the case. Bansal's plea is now at the heart of a controversy – four judges have been assigned the matter since January.Following certain complaints, Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, in an unusual move this month, de-listed it from a single-judge who had reserved the matter for judgment. Justice Nagu, who is now himself hearing the case, has hinted at attempts of forum shopping in the case and on May 27 rejected a request for withdrawal of the plea..Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who represents Bansal, on Thursday argued that the First Information Report (FIR) by ACB could not have been registered without prosecution sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act. "You cannot have a limping FIR, a partial FIR, a crippled FIR, valid against the private party and not against the public servant, with whom he is in a conspiracy, in a corruption charge," he said.Singhvi further made submissions in respect of the legislative intent behind the provision on requirement of sanction to prosecute public servants. The Court then asked whether such requirement exists even for a private person involved in a case under PC Act."The statute is so clear in its wordings ... 'committed by a public servant' ... how do you go out of this," Justice Nagu said.In response, Singhvi said,"It does not need to say. The Section has been interpreted in pure 17A cases involving a public servant only as being a bar to initiation of investigation into the crime. You cannot have investigation into the crime which is partial. When it is 120B, the two are intertwined."However, the Court said the protection is available only to a government servant and asked Singhvi to show a detailed judgment of the Supreme Court to support his submissions. Singhvi said he has more cases to cite..Towards the end of the hearing, Singhvi in an apparent reference to the controversy surrounding the case, said,"May I suggest. What had to happen, has happened, kindly don't have that. I am prepared to argue. Hear it either immediately after vacation, or in vacation, or allow me to withdraw. I cannot say more than that."Justce Nagu turned down the request for withdrawal. "I have already disclosed my mind that I am declining the plea of withdrawal. We are hearing on merits."The Court then adjourned the case to July 3. "Arguments heard in part. To come up for further arguments on 03.07.2025 at 9.30 A.M," the Court said in the order..As per the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which has filed a separate complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering (PMLA) against the accused, the trial judge Parmar had received illegal gratification to the tune of ₹5 to 7 crore from owners/promoters of IREO Group and M3M Group.The co-accused, Bansal, moved the High Court in October 2023 to quash the FIR but withdrew the plea in January 2025. He then filed the present plea. Different senior lawyers have appeared in the matter from time to time..Five judge changes and lawyers "destroying the Bar": The saga of trial judge bribery case in Punjab & Haryana HC.Senior Advocates Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Puneet Bali, with advocate Baljeet Beniwal, Sidharth Bhardwaj and Gagandeep Singh appeared for the petitioner on Thursday.Additional Advocate General Deepak Balyan represented the State of Haryana. Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain and Senior Panel Counsel Lokesh Narang represented the ED, which is intervening in Bansal's quashing plea.