HC quashes FIR against Swaraj Puri
THE INDORE bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday issued orders to quash the FIR registered by the Economic Offence Wing against former DGP Swaraj Puri.Updated: Oct 17, 2006 13:49 IST
THE INDORE bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday issued orders to quash the FIR registered by the Economic Offence Wing against former DGP Swaraj Puri.
The order of the bench headed by Justice S S Dwivedi said that the trial court directive made it clear that only a preliminary inquiry was to be conducted and therefore the filing of the FIR was wrong. The directive was misinterpreted by EOW.
The HC order further said that when the trial court was sitting over the matter, the police could not proceed by filing an FIR and conduct investigation as was being done in normal course. The police are required to be confined to the trial court directive, the judge added.
During arguments, former BJP corporator Mahesh Garg through counsel Manohar Dalal reiterated his objection against the word ‘grandfather’, stating that businessman Babulal Somani could be a grand uncle of Shreyas (Swaraj’s son) and not his grandfather as mentioned in the NRI sponsorship certificate submitted at Shri Govindram Sakseria Institute of Technology and Science, Indore (SGSITS) from where Shreyas graduated in April this year.
The certificate mentions ‘grandfather’ against the relationship column, but under the signature of Somani, a Hindi handwritten note says ‘Mata ke mausaji’, which means Somani is Shreyas’s mother’s ‘mausaji’.
Dalal alleged that under the garb of this fraud, the ex-DGP accepted bribe from Somani as fee of Rs 7.5 lakh to finance Shreyas’s studies at SGSITS. He said Special Judge Akhilesh Pandya’s order of September 15 was passed under Section 156(3) of CrPC, which makes it mandatory to
file an FIR against Swaraj Puri and other accused and the FIR cannot be interfered with, unless there are substantial grounds to do so.
He also alleged that first installment of Shreyas’s fee did not come through Somani’s account, but from that of his father. EOW, through Deputy Advocate General Girish Desai, argued that its job was only to collect information about the facts of the case and present it before the court to let the judge proceed accordingly.
EOW in written submissions said that it had no right to inquire into the case but only to investigate, for which it had to register FIR.
Pleading on behalf of Puri, advocate Satish Bagadia argued that if the sessions court had taken cognizance, there was no need for EOW to do the same.
This is because two agencies cannot take cognizance of the same case, he said, adding the haste with which the FIR was registered gives cause to suspect the motive.
First Published: Oct 17, 2006 13:49 IST