Chandigarh, May 24 -- A high-profile corruption case involving a Gurugram builder was withdrawn from a sitting judge of the Punjab and Haryana high court after the chief justice (CJ) received "oral and written" complaints, the court said in an order on Friday. The petition by real estate firm M3M's director, Roop Bansal, sought to quash a first information report filed by the Haryana anti-corruption bureau against former special Central Bureau of Investigation court judge, Sudhir Parmar, his nephew and M3M official Ajay Parmar, and Roop Bansal. The petition was being heard by justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu, who reserved judgment on May 2. But on May 8-9, chief justice Sheel Nagu received some "oral and written complaints". The next day, he withdrew the case from justice Sindhu's bench and listed it before himself. When the case was taken up on May 12, senior advocate Mukul Rohtagi, who appeared for the builder, objected to the development. On Friday, the chief justice rejected Rohatgi's arguments, and listed the case for further hearing on May 26. "The reason for withdrawing this case from the single bench criminal roster of justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu, was the receipt of complaint, (oral as well as written), which impelled the chief justice to requisition the record of this case from the said single bench and constitute another single bench comprising of chief justice on 12.05.2025 at 03.30pm to give quietus to the complaint, draw curtains to the controversy and save the institution and the concerned judge from any further embarrassment by deciding the case as expeditiously as possible," the order passed on Friday said. The order said the matter came up before the chief justice under some "disturbing circumstances". Justice Nagu said that he - with a view to "preserve the dignity and honour of the institution and so also the public trust" - took a step by withdrawing the case, and listed it before a newly constituted single bench comprising himself. Justice Nagu called the decision "drastic". "In the attending factual scenario, if the chief justice had not taken preventive emergent steps as aforesaid, then the chief justice would be failing in his duty and belying the oath taken by him. The only course available to the chief justice in the limited reaction time, was to withdraw the heard and reserved case from the single bench of justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu to be listed before another single bench. The object sought to be achieved was to prevent possible damage to the reputation of the institution," the chief justice said. In his order, justice Nagu asserted that the powers of chief justice in his capacity as master of the roster are "wide, pervading and plenary". "..this court finds that there is no express or implied bar for the chief justice to withdraw any case, which is heard and reserved by any particular bench and list the withdrawn case before any other single bench comprising of any judge or the chief justice," the order said. The order said the chief justice performs an ancillary function of looking into written or oral complaints against any particular bench and a decision is taken by "subjective assessment" based on objective material in hand, which sometimes comes at the 11th hour and the chief justice has a limited time to act. Sudhir Parmar was accused of alleged favouritism towards Roop Bansal and his brother Basant Bansal of M3M, and Lalit Goyal of the IREO Group. The Bansals and Goyal were accused by CBI and ED in cases pending before the special CBI court, which was at the time presided over by Parmar. In April 2023, an FIR was registered against Sudhir Parmar, Ajay Parmar, Roop Bansal, and others under sections 7, 8, 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code for offences relating to public servant being bribed, criminal misconduct by a public servant and criminal conspiracy, etc....