In a significant development, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday once again declined a request to withdraw a petition seeking the quashing of a bribery case involving Special Judge (CBI/PMLA) Sudhir Parmar, who is accused of granting undue favours to real estate groups M3M and IREO.
The petition was filed by Roop Bansal, Director of M3M Group and a co-accused in the case registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) of Haryana. The case is currently listed as Roop Bansal vs State of Haryana.
Background of the Case
The ACB FIR alleges that Judge Parmar received illegal gratification—estimated between ₹5 to ₹7 crore—from the promoters of M3M and IREO in exchange for favourable judicial outcomes in a money laundering case. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has filed a separate complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) based on similar allegations.
Roop Bansal initially filed a plea in October 2023 seeking to quash the FIR. That plea was withdrawn in January 2025. The present petition followed soon after and has since become embroiled in procedural controversy, having been listed before four different judges since January.
In an unusual move, Chief Justice Sheel Nagu de-listed the case from a single-judge bench that had reserved it for judgment. CJ Nagu has since taken over the matter himself and expressed concern over possible forum shopping. On May 27, he refused a similar request for withdrawal of the plea.
Thursday’s Hearing
During Thursday’s proceedings, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Bansal, challenged the very basis of the FIR. He argued that the ACB could not have proceeded without prior sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which is a statutory safeguard for public servants.
“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 conspiracy, in a corruption charge,” Singhvi argued.
Justice Nagu questioned whether the requirement of sanction under Section 17A extended to private individuals involved in a conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC, to which Singhvi responded that the two cannot be separated when the charge is conspiracy.
“The statute is so clear … ‘committed by a public servant’ … how do you go out of this?” the judge asked.
Singhvi maintained that prior sanction is required for initiating even an investigation in such cases and cited judicial interpretations of Section 17A. The Court, however, demanded detailed Supreme Court judgments to support his stance.
Toward the end of the hearing, Singhvi subtly referenced the procedural irregularities that have surrounded the case and suggested either an immediate hearing or withdrawal of the plea:
“What had to happen, has happened… Hear it either immediately after vacation, or in vacation, or allow me to withdraw. I cannot say more than that.”
Justice Nagu stood firm:
“I have already disclosed my mind that I am declining the plea of withdrawal. We are hearing on merits.”
The Court adjourned the matter to July 3, 2025, for further hearing.
