Punjab & Haryana High Court CJ Recuses From M3M Director’s Plea To Quash FIR In Bribe Case Involving Trial Judge
The Punjab and Haryana Excessive Court docket Chief Justice Sheel Nagu has recused from listening to the M3M director’s plea to quash a 2023 FIR for alleged conspiracy to bribe a Trial Court docket decide.
Roop Bansal is accused beneath Sections 7,8,11,13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 120-B (felony conspiracy) of the IPC.
CJ Nagu had earlier (Could 23) withdrawn the case from a single decide, who had reserved verdict within the matter, following some complaints. The CJ had additionally declined the request for withdrawal of the case. “The best way this case has been performed…I’d decline your request to withdraw it,” the CJ had remarked.
Because the matter was reassigned to his bench, Justice Nagu requested Bansal’s counsel if he has any objection on this regard.
“The Chief Justice has handled it on administrative facet whereby it has withdrawn the case from explicit bench…listening to the case on judicial facet…whether or not the precept that, justice shouldn’t solely be completed however seen to be completed is breached?” he requested.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi showing for Bansal then responded that he has directions to take objections on this floor.
The CJ then ordered that the matter be positioned on administrative facet, in order that it may be allotted to another bench.
Senior Panel Counsel Zohair Hussain sought to submit that what the workplace of Chief Justice does on administrative facet “by no means comes on its means of judicial facet.”
Nonetheless, Singhvi responded, “it’s our responsibility to advise the courtroom on precept. There are innumerable examples the place Chief Justice of India has refused to cope with the case on judicial facet when it has handled it on administrative facet…Greatest instance can be administrative judges who by no means cope with the circumstances which they’ve dealt on administrative responsibility.“
Within the mild of the above, the Chief Justice will put the case earlier than one other bench.
It’s pertinent to notice that the current FIR for quashing was firstly listed earlier than Justice Anoop Chitkara in October 2023, nevertheless as per the orders the case was adjourned on from the start both on request of the petitioner or the respondent-State counsel. Justice Chitkara didn’t keep the trial continuing through the listening to of quashing petition.
The final listening to occurred earlier than Justice Chitkara on 12 September 2024 whereby the decide acknowledged within the order, “It’s clarified that the matter shall not be additional adjourned as a result of non- availability of the State counsel” and the matter was listed for October 1. Nonetheless, the roster of the decide was modified.
Thereafter it was heard by one other single decide bench, Justice N.S Shekhawat who recused from the case and the case was then listed earlier than Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul. The petitioner sought withdrawal of the case earlier than her and the identical was allowed
“Discovered senior counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the current petition, with liberty to file afresh with higher notably. Dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty aforesaid,” acknowledged the order.
After that the recent plea was heard by one other single decide bench and it was withdrawn by the Chief Justice on the day it was listed for pronouncement, following the receipt of a criticism.
The Chief Justice in its order had then mentioned that the choice was within the “curiosity of the establishment” and to “shield the popularity” of the decide.
Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Puneet Bali appeared for the petitioner.
Senior Panel Counsel Zoheb Hossain and Senior Panel Counsel for UOI Lokesh Narang represented the Enforcement Directorate
Case Tite: ROOP BANSAL V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
