In a recent development, the Bombay High Court has ruled that if the police fail to register an FIR against prominent political figures, including NCP chief Sharad Pawar, his daughter MP Supriya Sule, and Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar, regarding the Lavasa hill station project, the petitioner has the option to file a private complaint before a magistrate. An article in the Indian Express mentioned that the court emphasized that while political pressure may influence the police, it will not affect the magistrate's impartiality.
Background of the Case
The case stems from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed earlier this year by lawyer Nanasaheb Jadhav. Jadhav sought directions for the police to initiate a case against the aforementioned politicians and others for alleged illegal permissions granted for a private hill station project at Lavasa in Pune district, Maharashtra. Jadhav's complaint faced resistance from the police, who cited the involvement of prominent politicians and officials. Consequently, Jadhav also called for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the matter.
The Petitioner's Struggle
Jadhav had initially filed a complaint with the Pune police commissioner on December 26, 2018. However, this complaint was forwarded to the Pune Rural police. In a quest for answers, Jadhav submitted a Right to Information (RTI) application on May 2, 2022, seeking information about the status of his complaint. To his dismay, he discovered that no FIR had been registered. On May 25 of the same year, Jadhav re-submitted his complaint to the Pune Rural superintendent of police under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which pertains to providing information in cognizable cases. Unfortunately, no action was taken on this complaint either.
Court's Perspective
During the court proceedings, the bench questioned Jadhav about the necessity for court intervention when the option of filing a private complaint before a magistrate was readily available. Jadhav argued that the respondents in the PIL wielded significant influence, and he claimed to have received threats to his life. The bench, however, clarified that while such influential individuals might sway the police, they would not have the same sway over a magistrate. In their official order, the bench highlighted that a comprehensive statutory mechanism exists under Section 156(3) of the CrPC for cases where an FIR has not been registered.
Previous Legal Proceedings
It's worth noting that in February, the then-Chief Justice Dipankar Datta, now a Supreme Court judge, along with Justice Girish S. Kulkarni, declined to intervene in a previous PIL filed by Jadhav. This earlier PIL sought to declare the special permissions granted to the Lavasa project as illegal. The High Court had cited a "judicial hands-off" approach due to significant delays in filing the PIL. Subsequently, in August of the same year, the Supreme Court issued a notice regarding Jadhav's appeal against the High Court's judgment, and the appeal in the earlier PIL remains pending before the apex court. During those proceedings, the bench had pointed out the personal interest shown by Sharad Pawar and Supriya Sule in the project, as well as their exertion of influence and clout. Additionally, it had noted that Ajit Pawar, who was the state irrigation minister at the time, had failed to disclose his direct or indirect interest in the project.
Share
Tweet
