Bombay HC rejects Anil Deshmukh’s plea seeking to quash CBI FIR

In a setback for former home minister Anil Deshmukh, the Bombay high court (HC) dismissed his petition which challenged the first information report (FIR) filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on April 21 after completing the HC-ordered preliminary enquiry

In a setback for former home minister Anil Deshmukh, the Bombay high court (HC) dismissed his petition which challenged the first information report (FIR) filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on April 21 after completing the HC-ordered preliminary enquiry. Deshmukh and unknown others were charged for bribery, corruption and criminal conspiracy in the FIR. Deshmukh had subsequently sought to quash the FIR and urged for a stay on the investigation by CBI, but the court has rejected the plea.

HT Image

Senior advocate Amit Desai, for Deshmukh, sought a stay on the investigation on the grounds tha the question of law was not decided and wanted to challenge the same before the Supreme Court. After CBI opposed the same, the court held that there was no justifiable reason to stay the operation of the judgement and rejected the request.

The division bench of justice SS Shinde and justice NJ Jamadar, that had been hearing Deshmukh’s petition, had reserved its judgement on July 12. During arguments, Desai along with advocates Kamlesh Ghumre and Sonali Jadhav had argued that CBI had not followed proper procedure and its probe had gone beyond the mandate of the April 5 order of the HC bench, hence the FIR was illegal and should be quashed.

On April 5, the division bench of chief justice Dipankar Datta and justice Girish Kulkarni had directed CBI to conduct a preliminary enquiry based on a complaint by lawyer Dr Jaishri Patil. Patil’s complaint referred to the March 20 letter of former Mumbai Police chief Param Bir Singh to chief minister Uddhav Thackeray wherein he had alleged that Deshmukh had asked his officers to indulge in extorting money from bars and restaurants. Singh had further alleged that Deshmukh had asked arrested assistant inspector Sachin Vaze to collect ₹100 crore every month, including ₹40 crore to ₹50 crore from 1,750 bars and restaurants in Mumbai.

The court had directed for the preliminary enquiry to be completed within 15 days after which, based on the findings, the CBI director could take appropriate action. Upon completion of the enquiry, the central agency registered an FIR against Deshmukh and unknown others, which Deshmukh challenged in the HC on May 3.

During arguments, Desai submitted that the entire procedure of registering the FIR after concluding preliminary enquiry was a case of overreach by CBI. He said though CBI was to take the consent of the state as per Delhi Special Police Establishment Act for registering FIR, it had failed to do so and had also failed to take consent of the state before initiating investigation based on the FIR. Desai had argued that state consent was required as Deshmukh was a public servant when the allegations were levelled against him.

It was further submitted on behalf of Deshmukh that Singh’s letter could have been merely a whisper that may have been heard in the corridors of the police commissioner’s office and lacked any material evidence. Hence the intention behind naming Deshmukh in the FIR was to besmirch his position while at the same time while safeguarding certain people.

Additional solicitor general Aman Lekhi, for CBI, while opposing the petition had informed the court that whoever was accused of corruption needed to be investigated and as the PE was ordered by the HC, there was no need for prior approval or consent of the state for registering the FIR or initiating investigations based on it.

Lekhi submitted that there was substantial material against Deshmukh, but it was not final evidence of dishonest performance and that several other persons were involved in the corruption.

After hearing submissions by both sides, the court had sought to know from CBI as to why even after two months since the FIR was registered it had not disclosed the names of unknown persons and sought progress report of the investigation in sealed cover.

“Corruption is the root cause because of which systems are paralysed. No one should be left out,” the court had observed. The court had also held that no police officer could escape his responsibility when there was a cognisable offence.

On Thursday while dismissing the petition, the court directed that the sealed envelope containing the progress report of the investigation be returned to CBI.