‘Why no FIR against Crime Branch officials despite proof?’ | Latest News India - Hindustan Times
close_game
close_game

‘Why no FIR against Crime Branch officials despite proof?’

Hindustan Times | By, Mumbai
Jul 08, 2009 01:44 AM IST

Why was no first information report (FIR) lodged against two Mumbai Crime Branch officials, despite there being evidence against them? This is what the Bombay High Court asked the Anti-Corruption Bureau on Tuesday.

Why was no first information report (FIR) lodged against two Mumbai Crime Branch officials, despite there being evidence against them?

HT Image
HT Image

This is what the Bombay High Court asked the Anti-Corruption Bureau on Tuesday.

Unlock exclusive access to the story of India's general elections, only on the HT App. Download Now!

The alleged corruption complaint was against Crime Branch officials Anil Mahabole and Rajendra Nikam.

The court made the observation while hearing a petition, seeking an independent probe in an extortion case involving fugitive gangster Dawood Ibrahim’s sister Haseena Parkar.

The order on the petition has been reserved.

Real estate developer Sandeep Shukla filed the petition seeking an independent inquiry in a case registered against him and his brother Krishnamilan Shukla.

The Anti-Extortion Cell (AEC) was investigating the case against Haseena Parkar and the Shukla brothers for allegedly trying to extort money from another developer Vinod Avlani and real estate broker Chandresh Shah.

Avlani had lodged a complaint with the Crime Branch unit 1 in December 2006 against Shukla and Parkar that they had not returned Rs 30 lakh they owed him.

Avlani and Shah had purportedly paid Rs 1 crore to the Shuklas to develop a slum rehabilitation scheme in Wadala. Parkar allegedly played middleman and the demand draft of Rs 1 crore was left with her.

Instead of lodging an FIR, Mahabole and Nikam approached the Shuklas demanding Rs 10 lakh to settle the matter. At that point, the Shuklas approached the ACB, who caught Mahabole accepting the initial installment of Rs 1.5 lakh.

Shukla also questioned why a mobile phone, provided by his associate Chandresh Shah to the then deputy commissioner of police (Detection) Dhananjay Kamlakar, was not seized, and why an inquiry not initiated against him.

Another Nokia N-series mobile given to Mahabole has been seized.

Discover the complete story of India's general elections on our exclusive Elections Product! Access all the content absolutely free on the HT App. Download now!

Get Current Updates on India News, Lok Sabha election 2024 live, Election 2024 along with Latest News and Top Headlines from India and around the world.
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON
Share this article
SHARE
Story Saved
Live Score
OPEN APP
Saved Articles
Following
My Reads
Sign out
New Delhi 0C
Wednesday, April 17, 2024
Start 14 Days Free Trial Subscribe Now
Follow Us On