HC refuses withdrawal of plea; CJ Sheel Nagu to hear arguments in M3M case

Two days after Chief Justice Sheel Nagu took up the petition filed by M3M group director Roop Bansal—after it was withdrawn from a Single Bench that had already reserved its verdict—the Bench this morning made it clear that it would not allow withdrawal of the plea.

Appearing before Chief Justice Nagu’s Bench, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi contended on M3M’s behalf that the court might have been given an impression that they were trying to delay or avoid. “We may have given the wrong impression to your Lordship…. Your Lordship may have been given an impression that we don't want to have it here. But 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 said.

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.

Singhvi said he had placed before the court nine points to show that he was not speaking from a position of weakness. But he did not want to risk the 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,” the Chief Justice said.

Singhvi pointed out that the allegations against him were that he conspired with a judge to get benefits. “There is a judgment 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 the judge never dealt with my cases, how can I be in a 120-B (criminal conspiracy) with a public servant or a judge?"

Singhvi added that a sanction was required before proceeding against a judge. “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 come up for further hearing on May 29.