AJL Plot Re-Allotment Case: P&H High Court Quashes Charges Against Bhupinder Singh Hooda & Associated Journals Ltd

Case Name: The Associated Journals Limited v. Central Bureau of Investigation; Bhupinder Singh Hooda v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Date of Judgment: 25 February 2026

Citation: CRR No.649 of 2021and CRR No.650 of 2021

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that criminal proceedings cannot be sustained where the foundational administrative decision remains valid, unchallenged and ratified by the competent authority. In the absence of prima facie material demonstrating criminal conspiracy, dishonest inducement, wrongful loss or abuse of official position for pecuniary gain, charges under Sections 120-B, 420 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are unsustainable. The Court set aside the order framing charges in the AJL plot re-allotment case .

Summary: The revision petitions challenged the order dated 16.04.2021 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Panchkula, whereby charges were framed against The Associated Journals Limited (AJL) and former Haryana Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda (BSH) in FIR No. RC CHG 2017 A0008 dated 05.04.2017 registered under Sections 120-B, 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act .

The case pertained to re-allotment of Institutional Plot No. C-17, Sector 6, Panchkula. The plot had originally been allotted to AJL in 1982 on ‘no profit no loss’ basis for publication of the newspaper “Nav Jiwan”. Owing to failure to raise construction within the stipulated period, the plot was resumed in 1992. Appeal and revision against resumption were dismissed in 1995 and 1996 respectively .

In 2005, after BSH assumed office as Chief Minister, AJL sought restoration of the plot. Despite legal opinion advising fresh advertisement in accordance with policy, BSH ordered re-allotment of the plot on 28.08.2005 at original rates plus interest. The decision was subsequently ratified unanimously by the Authority in its 97th meeting held on 16.05.2006 .

The CBI alleged that the re-allotment was illegal, caused financial loss to the Authority and amounted to criminal conspiracy, cheating and criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. It was alleged that re-allotment at old rates instead of prevailing rates caused wrongful loss of ₹63.08 lakh to the Authority .

The petitioners contended that the re-allotment was done in bona fide exercise of statutory powers; it stood ratified by the Authority; no personal gain or illegal gratification was alleged; audit objections regarding financial loss had been dropped; and no challenge had ever been made to the validity of the re-allotment order before any court or tribunal .

The High Court undertook an analysis of the ingredients of conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC, cheating under Section 420 IPC, and criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. It reiterated that framing of charge requires prima facie material disclosing essential ingredients of the alleged offences .

The Court observed that the re-allotment order dated 28.08.2005 had been ratified by the Authority and remained valid to date. It had neither been cancelled nor declared illegal by any competent forum. The construction was completed, occupation certificate was issued in 2014, and no proceedings had been initiated by the Authority to declare the allotment void .

Significantly, the Court held that the investigating agency could not unilaterally treat an administrative decision as illegal in the absence of its annulment by a competent authority. In the absence of a finding that the re-allotment itself was unlawful, criminal liability could not be fastened merely on the basis of a difference of opinion regarding policy or rates .

With respect to conspiracy, the Court found no material indicating any agreement or meeting of minds between AJL and BSH to commit an illegal act. AJL had merely sought restoration; it had not sought allotment at any specific rate. The entire re-allotment amount and extension fees were duly paid .

On the allegation of wrongful loss, the Court noted that audit objections had been dropped and no material had been produced to demonstrate actual loss to the Authority. The initial allotment itself had been on ‘no profit no loss’ basis .

In these circumstances, the Court held that the essential ingredients of Sections 120-B, 420 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act were not prima facie made out.

Decision: The revision petitions were allowed. The order dated 16.04.2021 framing charges against the petitioners was set aside and the petitioners were discharged .