The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed M3M Realtor Roop Bansal to withdraw his FIR challenge in an alleged judge bribery case, imposing a Rs 1 lakh cost payable to the Haryana State Legal Services Authority.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has permitted the withdrawal of a petition filed by M3M Group Director Roop Bansal challenging an FIR of a bribery case involving a trial court judge, subject to payment of costs amounting to ₹1 lakh to the Haryana State Legal Services Authority.
The order was passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aman Chaudhary while hearing CRM-33261-2025, an application seeking withdrawal of the main case.
The Court noted that Bansal’s counsel had voluntarily stated that no further challenge would be made to the FIR in question.
“Having heard parties on either side and learned counsel for the respondents… in view of the statement made on his own volition by the learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner that no further challenge shall be made to the FIR in question and costs of Rs.1 lakh shall also be paid, the application is accepted,” the Court observed.
Background of the Case
The case was registered by the Haryana Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and alleges that Judicial Officer Sudhir Parmar, who was serving as Special Judge (CBI/PMLA), extended undue favours to owners and promoters of M3M Group and IREO Group in proceedings related to a money laundering case.
Roop Bansal is a co-accused in the FIR and had initially approached the High Court in October 2023 seeking quashing of the case. That petition was withdrawn in January 2025, following which the present plea was filed.
Separately, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has filed a complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). According to the ED, trial judge Sudhir Parmar allegedly received illegal gratification ranging between ₹5 crore and ₹7 crore from promoters of the IREO and M3M Groups in exchange for favourable judicial orders.
During the pendency of the plea, the matter became the centre of a major judicial controversy. In May 2025, following certain complaints, Chief Justice Sheel Nagu de-listed the case from Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu, who had already heard the matter extensively and reserved it for judgment.
Chief Justice Nagu then began hearing the case himself. The petitioners objected, arguing that once a matter had been heard and reserved by a judge, it could not be taken over by another bench. However, in a judicial order dated May 23, 2025, Chief Justice Nagu held that there was no express or implied bar preventing the Chief Justice from withdrawing a case even after it had been reserved for judgment.
On May 27, 2025, he also rejected Bansal’s request to withdraw the petition at that stage. After making strong observations hinting at bench hunting, Chief Justice Nagu ultimately recused himself from the matter.
The proceedings attracted media attention, particularly due to remarks reportedly made by Chief Justice Nagu regarding advocates appearing in the case. This led the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana to initiate an inquiry. The Bar Council later exonerated all advocates, stating that the media had misrepresented the proceedings and that there was no judicial record supporting allegations of bench hunting.
Notably, the case witnessed at least five changes of judges, owing to recusals and roster adjustments, underscoring the sensitivity and complexity of the matter.
Court’s Observations and Order
Allowing the application for withdrawal, Justice Aman Chaudhary noted that the counsel for the petitioner made a voluntary statement that:
- No further challenge would be made to the FIR in question, and
- A cost of ₹1 lakh would be paid.
The Court observed that the State of Haryana and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) were unable to offer substantial resistance to the withdrawal plea.
Final Directions
Accordingly, the High Court ordered that:
- The main case CRM-M-19843-2025 (O&M) stands dismissed as withdrawn.
- The petitioner shall deposit ₹1 lakh with the Haryana State Legal Services Authority within one week.
- Proof of payment must be submitted to the Registry.
ALSO READ: BCI Bars Seven Law Colleges from Admitting Students for 2024-25 Academic Year
Appearance:
The petitioner: Mr. Avishkar Singhvi and Mr. Rajat Joneja, Advocates, Mr. Baljeet Beniwal, Advocate.
The State of Haryana: Mr. Gautam Kaile, Deputy Advocate General (DAG).
The Enforcement Directorate (ED): Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel, along with Mr. Lokesh Narang, Senior Panel Counsel.
Case Title:
Roop Bansal v. State of Haryana & Ors.
CRM-33261-2025; CRM-M-19843-2025 (O&M)
READ ORDER