A CBI court discharged Mandeep Kaur Dhillon, additional director of a private firm, in a corruption case alleging attempts to influence a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe, holding that there was no chargeable evidence against her.

The court, however, directed that charges be framed against former CBI Inspector Kapil Dhanked and advocate Manohar Malik under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Kaur was represented by advocates Sandeep Sharma, Sachin Baisla and Varun Mohan.

In its order dated July 4, the court held that Kapil Dhanked was liable to be charged under Section 120B of the IPC, read with Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, along with Section 218 of the IPC.

Manohar Malik is liable to be charged under Section 120B of the IPC, read with Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, besides the substantive offence under Section 7A of the Act. The matter has been listed for framing of charges on July 18.

The court observed that the material on record did not disclose any chargeable evidence against Mandeep Kaur Dhillon. It noted that the allegations, at best, suggested she acted at the behest of her husband, Mandeep Singh Dhillon, in relation to Shree Shyam Pulp and Board Mills Pvt Ltd (SSPBML).

However, neither Mandeep Singh Dhillon nor the company had been made accused in the present case, leading the court to conclude that she was entitled to be discharged. According to the prosecution, former CBI officials RK Sangwan, RK Rishi, Kapil Dhanked and stenographer Samir Kumar Singh conspired with private persons, including Manohar Malik and Arvind Kumar Gupta, to compromise investigations in certain CBI cases in return for illegal gratification.

The CBI alleged that in the SSPBML investigation, Rs 10 lakh was paid on behalf of Mandeep Kaur Dhillon to Kapil Dhanked for allegedly sharing confidential information related to the probe. It also alleged that Dhanked threatened former SSPBML directors Ajay Gupta and Lalit Gupta over alleged fund diversion and directed them to meet Manohar Malik. It further alleged that Malik demanded Rs 8 lakh to “settle” the matter. The prosecution claims the two later paid Rs 5 lakh to Malik.

The prosecution further alleged that Dhanked omitted crucial details related to financial transactions and the role of the former directors from the case diaries and the final report in the bank fraud investigation, despite records allegedly showing he was aware of them.