The Punjab and Haryana High Court has allowed withdrawal of a plea seeking quashing of a bribery case involving a trial court judge [Roop Bansal vs State of Haryana].
Justice Aman Chaudhary allowed M3M Group Director Roop Bansal's application seeking withdrawal of his writ petition subject to the payment of ₹1 lakh to Haryana State Legal Services Authority.
"Having heard parties on either side and learned counsel for the respondents-ED as well as State being not able to offer much resistance, 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 lac shall also be paid, the application is accepted," the Court ordered.
The case registered by Anti-Corruption Bureau of Haryana accuses judicial officer Sudhir Parmar (Special Judge CBI/PMLA) of extending undue favours to owners of M3M and IREO Group in a money laundering case.
Bansal, a co-accused, had sought quashing of the case.
As per the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which has filed a separate complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering (PMLA) against the accused, the trial judge Parmar had received illegal gratification to the tune of ₹5 to 7 crore from owners/promoters of IREO Group and M3M Group.
Bansal had first moved the High Court in October 2023 to quash the FIR but withdrew the plea in January 2025. He then filed the present plea.
During its pendency before the High Court, Bansal's plea remained at the heart of a controversy.
The case hit headlines when following certain complaints, Chief Justice Sheel Nagu in May 2025 de-listed it from single-judge Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu who had heard the matter at length and reserved it for judgment.
Chief Justice Nagu then started hearing the case himself. The petitioners, however, told Justice Nagu that he cannot hear the case since the matter was heard, reserved and listed for pronouncement by Justice Sindhu.
Chief Justice Nagu in a judicial order on May 23 said that there was no express or implied bar on Chief Justice to withdraw any case which is heard and reserved by any particular bench. Further, Chief Justice Nagu on May 27 also rejected a request by the petitioner for withdrawal of the plea.
After hinting at bench hunting in the matter and deciding to hear it himself, Justice Nagu also ultimately recused himself from the case.
A battery of lawyers including who's who of the Bar from Chandigarh to Delhi appeared in the matter. The bench hunting suspicion also put them under the spotlight.
The Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana then initiated an inquiry after the media reported Chief Justice Nagu’s searing observations against advocates appearing in the case. The lawyers' body, however, later exonerated all and blamed the media for misrepresenting the proceedings on the ground that there existed no judicial record of Justice Nagu’s suspicions.
Bansal's plea witnessed at least five judge changes due to recusals and roster adjustments.
Advocates Avishkar Singhvi, Rajat Joneja and Baljeet Beniwal represented the petitioner.
Deputy Advocate General Gautam Kaile represented the State of Haryana.
Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain and Senior Panel Counsel Lokesh Narang represented the ED.
[Read Order]