The Delhi High Court has declined to grant relief to the RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav in the alleged “land-for-jobs” case and refused to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him.
The plea was rejected by Justice Ravinder Dudeja who said that the plea was devoid of any merits. Lalu Yadav moved the High Court seeking the quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) registered against him by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in 2022. He also urged the Court to quash the chargesheets filed by the CBI and the trial court orders taking cognisance of them.
Yadav had approached the Court seeking the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to set aside the case, which stems from allegations that appointments in the Indian Railways were made in exchange for land transfers to his family members and close associates during his tenure as Railway Minister. The plea essentially questioned the legality and sustainability of the prosecution at the threshold stage.
After examining the matter, the High Court was not persuaded to interfere. It observed that the allegations, as reflected in the charge sheet and accompanying material, raise issues that require detailed examination and cannot be adjudicated without a full-fledged trial. The Court reiterated that its powers to quash proceedings must be exercised with caution, particularly where the case discloses a prima facie basis for prosecution.
In refusing to terminate the proceedings at this stage, the Court made it clear that disputed questions of fact and evidentiary assessment fall within the domain of the trial court. As such, it held that the appropriate course would be to allow the prosecution to proceed in accordance with law, enabling both sides to present their case through the established judicial process.
The case forms part of a wider investigation into alleged corruption involving multiple accused, including members of Yadav’s family. The prosecution has alleged that land parcels were transferred at concessional rates in return for public employment, an accusation that has been consistently denied by the defence.
With this ruling, the High Court has reinforced the principle that criminal proceedings should not be prematurely halted when the material on record warrants judicial scrutiny at trial.