advertisement
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday, 31 March, while hearing the petition of former Mumbai Police Commissioner Param Bir Singh against the alleged malpractices by Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh, asked why the police or the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) were not approached by Singh before bringing the matter to the courts.
Contemplating whether Singh’s plea against Deshmukh is “maintainable”, the court said that it will address the matter on two aspects – is the PIL maintainable and can the court direct investigation without an FIR.
The court reserved the order in the matter.
Singh has challenged his transfer to the Home Guard Department by the Maharashtra government, in the backdrop of the Mukesh Ambani bomb scare case and his alleged proximity with former API Sachin Vaze, who was arrested in the case. Singh has also demanded a CBI probe into the alleged corrupt malpractices by Deshmukh.
The court stressed on the fact that it would not be right to order an investigation without even an FIR being filed in the matter, LiveLaw reported.
“It is only in very, very rare cases the court can order an FIR. Please don't convert the HC into a magistrate’s court to order an FIR under Section 156(3). Approach the magistrate,” he further said.
“You are a police commissioner, why should the law be set aside for you? Are police officers, ministers and politicians all above the law? Don't view yourself so high, the law is above you,” Datta said, as quoted by LiveLaw.
Singh in his petition had claimed that Deshmukh held meetings in February 2021 with junior police officers, including former API Sachin Vaze and ACP Sanjay Patil, and instructed them to accumulate Rs 100 crore every month.
The court added that there wasn’t an affidavit from Patil annexed in Singh’s plea.
Senior Advocate Vikram Nankani appearing for Singh said that the allegations were coming from one of the seniormost officers of the force and that they were flagged to the Chief Minister and NCP supremo Sharad Pawar.
Nankani further suggested that “a letter can be converted into a petition”, and it was in the high court’s power to do so.
Calling the plea “unnecessary", AG Ashutosh Kumbhakoni appearing for the state said that the plea itself was not maintainable and was affecting the morale of the force, LiveLaw reported.
Calling him a “disgruntled litigant", Kumbhakoni said that “the entire allegation of the extortion racket is clearly hearsay.”
(With inputs from LiveLaw.)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)