HC declines withdrawal of quashing plea in M3M case

Just about two days after Chief Justice Sheel Nagu placed before himself a petition filed by M3M group director Roop Bansal after withdrawing it from a Single Bench who had reserved the verdict, the Bench this morning refused to allow the plea’s withdrawal.

The case had drawn attention after the Chief Justice, acting on oral and written complaints, took the unusual step of requisitioning the case record from the Single Judge who had heard the matter and reserved the verdict. Bansal, among other things, was seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC.

Appearing before Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, among other things, contended that a criminal accused had a right to withdraw. “I am only saying that an accused has a right to file 482 (CrPC) petition and the accused should have a right to withdraw it if he is not getting any particular relief from the court,” he added.

Referring to his arguments on facts of the case, Singhvi added he had placed before the court some nine points to show that he was not speaking from a position of weakness. But he did not want to risk high court’s findings against him in the trial

“Mr Singhvi, we are hearing you on merits. So I, particularly because of the way this case has been conducted, would decline that request of yours for withdrawal… Even if some observations are recorded, we will always say that this will not influence the trial judge... I'll appreciate if you conclude your arguments on merits,” Chief Justice Nagu asserted

Singhvi, during the course of arguments, pointed out that the allegations against him were that he conspired with a judge to get benefits. “There is a judgement in the same proceedings by a special anti-corruption judge –– PMLA judge Panchkula, which notes that that judge had no cases of M3M group pending before him and none were dealt with him in his capacity till April 17. 2023, which is a relevant cut-off date…. I am an accused. If the court’s finding in PMLA Panchkula court is that that judge never dealt with my cases, how can I be in a 120-B (criminal conspiracy) with a public servant or a judge?

Singhvi argued that a sanction was required before proceeding against a judge require. “To call him a judge and say that because the high court has given… HC sanction has nothing to do with a mandatory statutory prosecution sanction,” he argued. The case will now come up for further hearing on May 29.