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

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday declined a request to allow withdrawal of a petition seeking quashing of a bribery case involving a trial court judge. .One of the co-accused in the case sought permission to withdrawn the plea but Chief Justice Sheel Nagu refused to allow the same and asked the accused to argue the matter on merits. 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. Four judges have been assigned the matter since January. Following certain complaints, Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, in an unusual move, de-listed it from a single-judge who had reserved the matter for judgment.Justice Nagu, who is now himself hearing the case, on Monday hinted at attempts of forum shopping in the case. Different senior lawyers have appeared in the matter from time to time..Today, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Bansal for the first time and submitted that a wrong message has gone that there was an attempt to delay the adjudication of the case.After brief arguments on merits, he requested that plea be allowed to be withdrawn. "I don't want to risk adverse comments on my trial, so I will withdraw this... I believe I have a very strong case, surely the criminal accused has a right to withdraw. I just gave nine points that I am not speaking from a position of weakness," Singhvi submitted..However, Justice Nagu said the Court would like to hear the case on merits and not allow the withdrawal. "The way this case has been conducted, I would declined that request of yours for withdrawal," the Chief Justice said.In response, Singhvi said,"I don't defend because impressions are very important. The subtext conveyed may not be correct ... I started by saying that I don't defend that your lordship may have been given impression that we are trying to delay or avoid. Your lordships may have been given an impression that we don't want to have here. I am only saying that accused has right to file [Section] 482 [CrPC plea] and right to withdraw it. There is no catch to it.".The Court said even if it records some observations, it would clarify that they would not influence the trial court. Singhvi then said,"Your Lordship has got sufficient pre-occupations not to waste time on a case which need not be argued. Your lordship has an impression of the case because of past conduct. I don't think anybody's intention is to do that, as far as I am concerned"Justice Nagu was not convinced and asked Singhvi to continue arguments on merits. Singhvi then argued the law regarding prosecution sanction in the case. He will continue his arguments on May 29. .Five judge changes and lawyers "destroying the Bar": The saga of trial judge bribery case in Punjab & Haryana HC.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..Senior Panel Counsel Zoheb Hossain represented the Enforcement Directorate which is an intervenor in the case.