‘May have given wrong impression': Abhishek Singhvi seeks to withdraw realtor Roop Bansal's plea in Punjab & Haryana High Court
The petition by Roop Bansal, director of the real estate firm M3M, seeks to quash an FIR filed by Haryana's Anti-Corruption Bureau. As the hearing began, Singhvi opened with a pointed clarification, 'I understand why, My Lord, sometimes a wrong message is given, as if we are trying to delay or not have it heard… I just deprecate that.'
Singhvi acknowledged past adjournments and sought to dispel any notion of evasiveness. 'Yes, we may have given a wrong impression … I believe in being very candid with the court,' he said.
He proceeded to outline what he called 'seven or eight substantive points', foremost among them being the lack of sanction under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which he termed a jurisdictional defect. 'The interesting point is that 17A is mandatory—this is not disputed. And 17A has factually not been taken—this too is not disputed,' he said.
The chief justice interjected to clarify that the judicial officer mentioned in the FIR was not before the court. 'The judge's case is not before us, so we are not dealing with his case,' Chief Justice Nagu said.
Singhvi responded: 'No, My Lord, I'm talking about the allegation against me. I'm M3M. The allegation is that I conspired with the judge to get benefits. If the judge never dealt with my cases, how can I be in a 120B with him?'
CJ Nagu reiterated: 'The judge concerned is not the petitioner.'
Singhvi then pivoted to challenge the evidentiary basis of the FIR, citing that WhatsApp screenshots and voice recordings had not been validated by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory's reports. 'Out of four recordings, three are not matched. One is a probable match—not a confirmed one,' he submitted.
Singhvi also raised objections to alleged illegal interceptions, pointing to violations of Rule 419A of the Telegraph Rules: 'There is no averment of following the interception rules… and there's case law to that effect.'
The senior counsel also criticised the role of the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which had opposed the petition. 'The ED is intervening with no locus in a predicate offence case… My clients were foolish enough not to challenge their intervention,' Singhvi said.
Senior counsel Zoheb Hossain, appearing for the ED, said the agency's impleadment had not been objected to.
Singhvi then made a candid admission. 'I don't want to risk adverse findings on my ultimate trial… This is a very strange case. I'm not seeking any relief today. I wish to withdraw this petition.'
However, Chief Justice Nagu declined the request, stating: 'We are hearing you on merits… I would decline that request of yours.'
Insisting on the right of an accused to withdraw a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Singhvi said: 'Surely, My Lord, a criminal accused has a right to withdraw… Look, I want to satisfy the judge's conscience. There shouldn't be any catch to it. Today, opposing me is the ED—of all people—in a predicate offence 482.'
Singhvi asked the court to at least record his request, 'Kindly record my submission that I wish to withdraw it.'
When Singhvi expressed concern about adverse observations affecting his trial, Chief Justice Nagu reassured him, 'Even if we record some observations, we will always say that this will not influence the trial judge.'
The hearing continued with Chief Justice Nagu directing Singhvi to proceed with his arguments.
The case will now be heard at 9.30 am on Thursday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
29 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Companies affected in IPR cases can press criminal charges as 'victim': SC
The Supreme Court has held that a company can be called a 'victim'' under the Code of Criminal Procedure and it can file an appeal against an acquittal order in criminal cases, including violations of intellectual property rights (IPRs). This means that corporate entities affected by violations of such rights could pursue criminal proceedings as the victim. A Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing a plea by Asian Paints, which had suffered losses due to the accused allegedly selling counterfeit paints. Asian Paints moved the apex court against the Rajasthan High Court judgment dismissing its appeal against the acquittal of Ram Babu, who was allegedly found selling counterfeit paints under the brand name 'Asian Paints'. The High Court had dismissed the appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, reasoning that an agent of Asian Paints and not the company was the 'complainant' and therefore the latter couldn't file an appeal against the acquittal. The Supreme Court, while disagreeing with this reasoning, questioned whether the appellant would fall under the definition of 'victim' in terms of Section 2(wa) read with the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, or whether Section 378 of the CrPC would prevail in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The proviso to Section 372 grants victims the right to appeal against acquittal of the accused, conviction for a lesser offence, and inadequate compensation. If the court orders insufficient compensation for the victim, the victim can appeal. The apex court Bench held it was clear that 'Section 2(wa) of the CrPC has thoughtfully accorded an expansive understanding to the term 'victim' and not a narrow and restrictive meaning'. 'In the present case, there cannot be any two opinions that ultimately, it is the Appellant who has suffered due to the counterfeit/fake products being sold/attempted to be sold as having been manufactured by the Appellant. The Appellant would suffer financial loss and reputational injury if such products would be bought by the public under the mistaken belief that the same belonged to the Appellant's brand,' the judgment said. Asian Paints, a manufacturer in the paints industry for over 73 years, had engaged IPR consultancy firm M/s Solution to track and take action against counterfeiters. During a market investigation in February 2016, the firm had found counterfeit products resembling Asian Paints' trademarks at the shop Ganpati Traders in Tunga, Rajasthan, owned by Ram Babu. After police inspection, 12 buckets of allegedly fake paint were seized. The trial court acquitted Ram Babu, after which Asian Paints challenged the order in the High Court. The High Court dismissed Asian Paints' appeal.
The Hindu
34 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Pakistan court orders probe into online blasphemy spike
A Pakistan court ordered a government probe on Tuesday (July 15, 2025) into allegations that young people are being entrapped in online blasphemy cases, following appeals from hundreds of families. There has been a spike in cases of mostly young men being arrested for committing blasphemy in WhatsApp groups since 2022. Rights groups and police have said that many are brought to trial by private law firms, who use volunteers to scour the internet for offenders. "The government will constitute a commission within a 30-day timeframe," said Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan at Islamabad High Court, adding that the commission is required to submit its findings within four months. Blasphemy is an incendiary charge in Muslim-majority Pakistan punishable by death, and even unsubstantiated accusations can incite public outrage, lead to lynchings and to families being shunned by society. A report published by the government-run National Commission for Human Rights in October last year said there were 767 people, mostly young men, in jail awaiting trial over blasphemy allegations. "This is a huge ray of hope and it's the first time that the families have felt heard," said lawyer Imaan Mazari, who represents the families of arrested men and women, of the court order. "Youngsters have been falsely roped into cases of such a sensitive nature that the stigma will last forever even if they are acquitted," she added. A 2024 report by Punjab police into the sudden spike in cases, that was leaked to the media, found that "a suspicious gang was trapping youth in blasphemy cases" and may be motivated by financial gain. The Legal Commission on Blasphemy Pakistan (LCBP) is the most active of lawyers groups prosecuting young men in Pakistan. Sheraz Ahmad Farooqi, one of the group's leaders, told AFP in October that "God has chosen them for this noble cause". In recent years, several youngsters have been convicted and handed death sentences, although no execution has ever been carried out for blasphemy in Pakistan. "We will fully support the probe commission and are confident that our voices will finally be listened to, our concerns will be heard, and the truth will come out," the relative of one of the accused, who asked not to be named because of the backlash, said.
Economic Times
35 minutes ago
- Economic Times
A law to settle disputes, if neglectful to power, can sustain the inequalities it seeks to remedy
And don't you forget that you're being recorded On Monday, the Supreme Court in 'Vibhor Garg v. Neha' ruled that a husband's secretly-recorded phone calls with his wife are admissible evidence in a divorce litigation. Justice B V Nagarathna, writing for a 2-judge bench, invoked the exception under Section 122, Indian Evidence Act, which permits disclosure of communication between spouses in marital suits. The court reasoned that such recordings advance the constitutional right to a fair trial, and can override marital privacy. With that single move, the court reiterated a boundary that has long kept domestic surveillance at least technically suspect. It is now law that a spouse may listen in first and justify later, so long as the marriage is on the rocks. The judgment demands close scrutiny, as it fails to consider the power imbalances underlying privacy breaches. Snooping as coercive control: The court treats clandestine recordings as a mere effect of marital breakdown, not a cause. However, this reasoning ignores the phenomenon of coercive control. Call-recording apps installed without consent, insistence on shared passwords and unlocked phones, and forced access to WhatsApp chats and UPI SMS alerts are scenarios Indian counsellors routinely hear from survivors of domestic abuse, primarily women. Most times, surveillance precedes, and often precipitates, marital discord. Women's rights activists and family lawyers reiterate that domestic surveillance is an intrusive and all-consuming method of gendered domination. By holding that secret clips, however obtained, are presumptively admissible, the judgment incentivises spying - especially for the spouse who enjoys economic leverage or technological literacy. Courts could have insisted on a proportionality filter: admit only material that could not be gathered by less-intrusive means, and weigh whether the act of snooping itself constituted a form of abuse. Instead, the ruling raises the stakes for many wives already monitored by their husbands or in-laws, and sharpens the pressure to 'behave' under watch. Sanctity v. privacy: To justify this outcome, the bench reaches back to the Victorian rationale of Section 122. Shielding privileged communication between spouses protects the 'sanctity of marriage'. The court now says that once marital harmony is eroded, so must the privilege; privacy plays no independent role. This reasoning justifies a 200-year-old outdated rationale, instead of subjecting it to the latest constitutional tests of privacy. Since the authoritative 9-judge bench 2017 judgment in the 'Justice K S Puttaswamy' case, informational privacy has been declared a part of Article 21 of the Constitution. Every statutory limit on this must pass a proportionality test. State infringement of privacy must be: Be proportionate to the need for such interference. Have procedural guarantees against abuse of power. The spirit of Puttaswamy ideally should be followed here, even when the breach is by a private party. A blanket licence for covert recordings, which ignores the means of recording and their centrality to the litigation at hand, would fail the proportionality test's requirement of necessity and minimal court's refusal to run Section 122 through the 'Puttaswamy filter' echoes the logic that once kept marital rape outside the penal code. Marriage was said to confer perpetual consent to sexual acts between spouses. For several decades, this rationale was unquestioningly accepted as legitimate. Constitutional adjudication should do the opposite in all these cases - interrogate inherited rationales, not inherit them rights activists have long argued that privacy cannot shield domestic violence. The state should step into the home when there's abuse. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 is rooted in that insight. Yet, women's rights also insist that intrusions on privacy be evaluated through the lens of power and vulnerability.'Vibhor Garg' ignores this safeguard. It allows the spouse with the tech tools to trample upon privacy, even when the surveillance itself may be a form of abuse. A rights-sensitive approach should perhaps ask: was the recording coerced? Was it a tool of clandestine control? Admitting such evidence without that inquiry risks turning the courtroom into an extension of the abusive household, where such control is legitimised through Supreme Court has shown that it can balance public interest with personal liberty. In 'Selvi v. State of Karnataka' (2010), it permitted narco-analysis only when the accused gives consent and strict procedural safeguards are observed. In 'Vibhor Garg', however, it reads the Evidence Act mechanically and only weighs privacy against marital far richer constitutional values of autonomy, dignity and equality hardly make an appearance. The exception in Section 122 should be subjected to a proportionality inquiry. Until then, 'Vibhor Garg' stands as a cautionary tale: a law framed to settle disputes, if inattentive to power, can perpetuate the very inequalities it seeks to remedy. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. Rumblings at the top of Ola Electric The hybrid vs. EV rivalry: Why Maruti and Mahindra pull in different directions. What's best? How Safexpress bootstrapped its way to build India's largest PTL Express business Zee promoters have a new challenge to navigate. And it's not about funding or Sebi probe. Newton vs. industry: Inside new norms that want your car to be more fuel-efficient Stock Radar: UltraTech Cements hit a fresh record high in July; what should investors do – book profits or buy the dip? F&O Radar | Deploy Bear Put Spread in Nifty to gain from index correction Weekly Top Picks: These stocks scored 10 on 10 on Stock Reports Plus
