The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday set aside the orders framing charges against former Haryana CM Bhupinder Singh Hooda and The Associated Journals Limited (AJL) in the Panchkula plot re-allotment case. The Bench held that the material on record did not even prima facie disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences.The ruling virtually clears Hooda in one of the most politically sensitive cases linked to his tenure, removing the immediate shadow of prosecution in the Panchkula plot matter. For the AJL, the ruling means that the plot’s re-allotment to it cannot be treated as a crime.Allowing the petitions, Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya ruled, “The impugned orders, dated April 16, 2021, framing charges against the petitioners as well as dismissing the discharge application, are hereby set aside along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, and the petitioners stand discharged.”The Bench also criticised the CBI, calling its approach legally untenable and observing that the continuation of the prosecution would amount to an “abuse of the process of court”.Court’s core findingsJustice Dahiya noted that the CBI’s case rested on the allegation that Hooda had, in 2005, illegally re-allotted an institutional plot in Sector 6, Panchkula, to the AJL at original rates after it had been resumed. The agency alleged that the move was without authority, violated statutory provisions and intended to confer pecuniary advantage.However, the court found no material to support charges of conspiracy, cheating, abuse of official position or wrongful gain or loss. It said the re-allotment was unanimously ratified by the competent authority, had never been declared illegal by any court or tribunal, and had been fully implemented.“It is unfathomable as to how the investigating agency can consider the re-allotment of plot unlawful on its own, and proceed to register a criminal case on that basis. This is absolutely illegal and far from any procedure known to law,” Justice Dahiya said.Background of the caseThe dispute concerns institutional plot No. C-17 in Sector 6, Panchkula, originally allotted by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), now Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran, to the AJL in 1982. The plot was resumed in 1992 for failure to raise construction within 10 years. The AJL’s appeal and revision were dismissed in 1995 and 1996.In 2005, after Hooda became Chief Minister, the plot was re-allotted to the AJL. After the change in government in 2014, an FIR was registered by the state vigilance bureau and later taken up by the CBI, alleging irregularities causing financial loss to HUDA.Charges were framed in April 2021 by the Special CBI Court, Panchkula, and Hooda’s discharge plea was dismissed, leading to the revision petitions. Hooda was represented by senior advocates RS Cheema and Sartej Singh Narula. His petition was filed through counsel Arshdeep Singh Cheema.No illegality, no loss, no conspiracyJustice Dahiya observed that the re-allotment order of August 28, 2005, had been ratified ex post facto by the Authority on May 16, 2006. It had neither been reviewed nor declared illegal by any court. The AJL had paid the entire re-allotment price and extension fee, raised construction and received an occupation certificate in August 2014.“No grievance has been raised regarding any loss to the authority, nor has the AJL or any other accused been called upon to make good any perceived harm. Even the government auditors have dropped their objection regarding financial loss,” the court said.On conspiracy, Justice Dahiya said there was no material to indicate any agreement between Hooda and AJL to cheat the Authority. “It is, therefore, rather strange to accuse the AJL of harbouring any intention to cause loss to the authority by seeking restoration of the plot. And once the intention of causing any loss cannot be attributed to the AJL, it cannot be accused of conspiring with BSH for any wrongful gain.”He added that all documents relied upon by the CBI showed Hooda acted independently and on official advice. “Nothing suggests a joint effort or meeting of minds between the AJL and BSH with the intention to get the plot re-allotted.”‘Miscarriage of justice’Concluding that the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act were not made out even prima facie, the court held, “Accordingly, the orders passed by the Special Judge rejecting the petitioner’s discharge application and framing charges are perverse and have resulted in miscarriage of justice.”