Haryana cops move HC to quash trial in Gurugram school murder case, cite lack of sanction
Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul has issued a notice of motion to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the State of Haryana, and other respondents. The matter will now be heard on July 28.
Senior advocates Bipan Ghai and Vinod Ghai, along with Nikhil Ghai, Arnav Ghai, Akhil Godara, and R.S. Bagga, appeared on behalf of the petitioners and challenged the June 13 order of the CBI special judicial magistrate, Panchkula. They submitted that the order effectively amounted to a review of the earlier judicial decision dated January 15, 2021, in which the same court had explicitly declined to take cognisance due to the absence of sanction under Section 197 CrPC.
'No fresh sanction was procured in the interim, yet cognisance was taken merely on the strength of an application moved by the complainant,' the counsel argued, terming the move an 'impermissible review' and therefore 'illegal and unsustainable'.
The petitioners further contended that the allegations against them stemmed from acts performed in the discharge of official duties. Hence, they are entitled to protection under Section 197, which prohibits courts from taking cognisance of offences allegedly committed by public servants without prior government sanction. The plea also includes a senior assistant commissioner of police.
The case stems from the murder of a second-grade student in 2017 whose throat was slit on school premises. Initially, Haryana Police arrested Ashok Kumar, a school bus conductor, but after public outrage and media scrutiny, the probe was handed over to the CBI. The CBI later named a fellow student, identified only as 'Bholu' to protect his identity, as the accused and alleged that Kumar was falsely implicated by the SIT through fabricated evidence and coerced witnesses.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
22 minutes ago
- The Hindu
SC refuses to intervene in appeal by Lalu Prasad for stay of trial
: The Supreme Court on Friday (July 18, 2025) refused to intervene in an interim order of the Delhi High Court declining to stay a corruption trial against former Bihar Chief Minister Lalu Prasad in a land-for-jobs case. However, a Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh asked the Delhi High Court to expedite the hearing in the main petition filed by Mr. Yadav to quash the criminal case registered against him by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The Bench also made it clear observations made by the High Court in the interim order would not affect the disposal of the main petition. The apex court said it did not want to comment on the case against Mr. Yadav on the basis of an appeal filed by him challenging an interim order of the High Court. The court further dispensed with the presence of Mr. Yadav from the trial proceedings after considering his age and health. Corruption case pertains to Lalu's tenure as Railway Minister Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mr. Yadav, said the corruption case was related to Group D appointments made in the West Central Zone of the Indian Railways based in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, during Mr. Yadav's tenure as the Railway Minister between 2004 and 2009, allegedly in return for land parcels gifted or transferred by the recruits in the name of his family or associates. The case was registered on May 18, 2022, against Mr. Yadav and others, including his wife, two daughters, unidentified public officials and private persons. Mr. Sibal submitted that the FIR was lodged after a 14-year delay despite initial enquiries and investigations had led to the filing of a closure report in the competent court. He questioned why the CBI had not taken prior sanction before prosecuting Mr. Yadav, whose actions as a Minister was under question. 'The investigation cannot start without a prior sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The agency had taken sanction for all the government servants, except him [Yadav]... The enthusiasm is telling,' Mr. Sibal said. Appearing for the CBI, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju countered that sanction was not required as the offence was allegedly committed prior to the 2018 amendment of the Act inserting Section 17A. Mr. Sibal responded that the FIR however was registered in 2021, post the amendment. The Bench said it did not want to look into the merits and facts of the case, which may be left to the High Court to consider.
Indian Express
22 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Karnataka High Court recalls order quashing caste atrocity case against Infosys co-founder Kris Gopalakrishnan, IISc officials
The Karnataka High Court Thursday recalled its earlier order that had quashed proceedings under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, initiated against Infosys co-founder S Kris Gopalakrishnan and several Indian Institute of Science (IISc) officials, including Director Govindan Rangarajan and Registrar Sridhar Warrier. Justice S R Krishna Kumar passed the recall order after the complainant, Dr D Sanna Durgappa, a former IISc professor, submitted that the earlier ruling was passed without hearing his side. The court observed that the complainant and his counsel were not present – either physically or via video conferencing – on April 16, when a co-ordinate bench had allowed the petition by the accused and quashed the First Information Report (FIR). 'Learned senior counsel for petitioners would not dispute that… the respondent no 1 or his counsel were not present… and that they were not heard on that day,' the court noted. 'In that view of the facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion… and in order to provide one more opportunity to respondent no 1 to make submissions on the merits of the matter, I deem it just and appropriate to recall the final order,' Justice Krishna Kumar stated. The matter has been restored for hearing on August 7, with the interim stay on proceedings extended until then. The case involves allegations of caste-based discrimination, wrongful dismissal, and threats made by senior IISc officials and members of its Governing Council. Apart from Gopalakrishnan – Chairman of the IISc Council since 2022 – others named in the FIR include Sandya Vishwswaraih, Hari K V S, Dasappa, Balaram P, Hemalata Mhishi, Chattopadyaya K, Pradeep D Sawkar, and Manoharan. The matter stems from a private complaint filed by former IISc assistant professor Dr Durgappa, who hails from a Scheduled Caste group. He alleged that he was falsely implicated in a 2014 honey trap case, following which he was terminated from service in 2015. He also claimed caste-based abuse and threats by IISc faculty and legal representatives. The termination was legally challenged, but a settlement was reached, converting it into a resignation. Dr Durgappa received terminal benefits and agreed to withdraw related complaints pending before bodies like the National Commission for Scheduled Castes. Despite this, he filed two more complaints in 2016 and 2017 under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which the high court quashed, noting that the allegations were an attempt to give a 'criminal colour to a civil dispute.' In 2025, he filed a third complaint with similar charges and fresh allegations against two IISc legal representatives. This led to the registration of an FIR, which the high court had quashed on April 16, stating the claims did not constitute offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and amounted to 'vexatious litigation.' Justice Hemant Chandangoudar had termed the FIR 'an abuse of the legal process' and permitted the petitioners to approach the Advocate General for initiating criminal contempt proceedings against Dr Durgappa. With Thursday's order, the matter is now restored for fresh hearing, giving the complainant an opportunity to present his case.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Supreme Court Setback For Lalu Yadav Ahead Of Bihar Elections
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) chief Lalu Prasad Yadav's plea against the Delhi High Court's refusal to stay trial court proceedings against him in the land-for-jobs scam case. The top court today said that it is not inclined to interfere with the matter at this stage. A Bench Of Justices MM Sunderesh and N Koteshwar Singh said that "We are not inclined to interfere except by observing that at the time of disposing the final matter the observation made in the impugned order will not stand in the way." The bench observed that "Considering the fact and circumstances of the case we are inclined to pass further order to the effect that he may not be personally present and therefore his appearance is dispensed with. We request the High Court to expedite the hearing. Disposed of accordingly." Mr Yadav has moved the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court order which had refused to stay CBI proceedings against him in the land-for-jobs corruption case in June this year. Lalu Yadav has challenged that high court order in the top court. A Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja had dismissed the application for stay of proceedings and held that there were no compelling reasons warranting judicial interference at the interim stage, especially in light of the pending adjudication before the Supreme Court on the core issue of applicability of Section 17-A PC Act. What is Land-For-Jobs case? It is alleged that the Group-D appointments made in the West Central Zone of the Indian Railway based in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, during Lalu Yadav's tenure as the rail minister between 2004 and 2009 were allegedly in return for land parcels gifted or transferred by the recruits in the name of the RJD supremo's family members or associates. The case was registered on May 18, 2022 against Mr Yadav and others, including his wife, two daughters, unidentified public officials and private persons. In his petition in the high court, Lalu Yadav had sought the quashing of the FIR as well as the three chargesheets filed in 2022, 2023 and 2024 and the consequential orders of cognisance. It was his argument that the FIR was lodged in 2022, that is, almost after a delay of 14 years, despite the CBI's initial enquiries and investigations being closed after the filing of the closure report before the competent court.
