InW.P. (CRL) 1607/2019 -DEL HC- Delhi High Court upholds charges against Bhutani brothers in Arvind Co-op Group Housing Society scam
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela [30-11-2023]

Read Order: Prem Bhutani&Anr V. Central Bureau of Investigation

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, December 1, 2023: The Delhi High Court has dismissed the petition filed by Prem Bhutani and Anil Bhutani, challenging the framing of charges against them in the Arvind Cooperative Group Housing Society scam. The Court upheld the charges against the Bhutani brothers, holding that there was sufficient evidence to proceed with the trial.

In the case at hand, the counsel who represented the petitioners, emphasized that the alleged conspiracy concluded before implicating the petitioners. He contended that the conspiracy could be viewed in two ways: the object being legal but attained through illegal means, or the object being illegal but the means being legal. He argued that the petitioners did not align with either theory. According to him, the trial court proceeded without jurisdiction when framing charges against the petitioners.

On the contrary, the Special Public Prosecutor argued that the petitioner's role extended beyond that of a mere financer. Citing Paragraph 15 of the chargesheet, the counsel contended that the investigation revealed a longstanding employment of Rajeev Khanna and Yogender Mohan Duggal in M/s. Parmesh Construction Co. Ltd, owned by the petitioners for the past 20 years. He asserted that the petitioners orchestrated the appointments of Yogender Mohan Duggal and Rajeev Khanna as the President and Secretary of the society. It was further claimed that the petitioners, along with other members, arranged Rs. 1 Crore through friends and relatives for paying the premium amount to the DDA. According to him, the petitioners were fully aware that the subject Society was a liquidated one.

The single-judge bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Kanchan Kumar vs. State of Bihar [LQ/SC/2022/1150], wherein it has been observed that the judge, while considering framing charges under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of determining whether a prima facie case against the accused has been made out or not. If materials disclose a grave suspicion against the accused that has not been properly explained, the court is justified in framing charges and proceeding with the trial.

The bench emphasized that while a strong suspicion is adequate to maintain an order on charges, it must be grounded in material that can be translated into evidence during the trial. This strong suspicion should not be a mere subjective satisfaction based on the moral notions of the judge, merely considering the possibility that the accused might have committed the offense. Instead, this suspicion should be based on material that, in the court's view, sufficiently supports the prima facie view that the accused has indeed committed the offense.

In the context of the present case, the bench took note of the fact that the alleged forged list of the members of the Society included the names of Yoginder Mohan Duggal and Rajeev Khanna as President and Secretary, who had submitted their names for consideration as members on 02.02.2003, just one day before the land allotment was sanctioned by the DDA on 03.02.2003. It was also revealed that they were employees of the petitioners during the relevant period.

The bench also observed that the bank account in the name of the Society was introduced by the petitioner himself, and the employees were authorized by the petitioner to operate the account. The investigation also revealed that cheques signed by Duggal and Khanna for returning the fund/loan were actually in the handwriting of the petitioner.

The bench further noted the suspicious timing of the land allotment shortly after the submission of the employees' names for membership, as well as the series of events and transactions involving the Society, the petitioners, and other individuals, indicating a larger conspiracy beyond just fraudulently getting the land allotted in the Society's name.

“All the aforesaid facts including the acts of omission and commission alleged against the petitioners appear to be intrinsically intertwined and at this stage it is very difficult for this Court to segregate the facts and allegations arising in the present case,” observed the bench.

Thus, the bench concluded that the suspicion regarding the petitioners' complicity appeared grave at the present stage of the proceedings. It emphasized the trite principle that, during the framing of charges, courts are to consider general allegations and the documents/evidence on record without delving into the details of evidence or conducting a mini trial. In light of these considerations, the bench found no infirmity or inconsistency in the view taken by the Trial Court.

Further, the bench stated that, concerning the objections to the jurisdiction of the Special Court under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) in relation to the offenses alleged against the petitioners, the Supreme Court's decision in Essar Teleholdings Ltd. & Others v. Registrar General, Delhi High Court & Others [LQ/SC/2013/636], provided clear guidance. The bench highlighted that Section 3, read with Section 4 of the PC Act, explicitly allows a Special Judge to try not only offenses punishable under the PC Act but also any conspiracy to commit, attempt to commit, or abetment of these offenses. Additionally, the bench referred to Section 223 of the Cr.P.C, emphasizing that persons accused of different offenses committed in the course of the same transaction may be charged and tried together. The bench concluded that the Special Judge, having jurisdiction over offenses under the PC Act, could also try the petitioners for offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in connection with the same transaction.

In view of the above, the Court held that the present petition lacked merit and accordingly dismissed it.