IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the grant of approval or sanction should demonstrate consideration of materials and application of mind, and any decision on defects in the approval or sanction should be made at the conclusion of the trial.

JUDGMENT :

A. S. Gadkari, J.

1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties, taken up for final hearing.

2) Petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for quashing and setting aside the Prior Approval/ Sanction dated 27th February 2015 issued by the Respondent No.2 i.e. the Competent Authority under Section 23(1)(a) of The Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short, “M.C.O.C. Act”) and for other consequential reliefs.

3) Heard Mr. Subodh Desai, learned counsel for Petitioner in WP/957/2015, Mr. Tushar Khandare, learned counsel for Petitioner in WP/956/2015 and Mr. S.V. Gavand, learned A.P.P. for Respondents-State.

Perused record produced before us.

4) Mr. Subodh Desai, learned counsel for Petitioner submitted that, Respondent No.2 i.e. Competent Authority has issued the said Prior Approval/Order dated 27th February 2015, mechanically and without application of mind. That, a bare perusal of First Information Report (F.I.R.) would make it clear that, no offence as contemplated under Section 506 (Part II) of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) is made out. He submitted that, when the alleged threat as contemplated under Section 506 (Part II) was extended by the Petitioner Goeffrey D'souza, the Petitioner Nilesh Paradkar was on phone and the informant has overheard it and therefore it may not be construed that, the Petitioner Goeffrey D’souza gave the said threat to the life of informant. He submitted that, the informant of the said Crime i.e. CR No. 56 of 2015 was a member of Parliament and therefore lodgment of the said crime is politically motivated. The police machinery therefore swung into motion swiftly while granting Prior Approval. He submitted that, the impugned Prior Approval suffers from vice of non application of mind. That, the Respondent No.2 has not adhered to the mandate of the provisions of M.C.O.C. Act and has exceeded the jurisdiction vested with him, particularly when the offences alleged against the Petitioners are non cognizable in nature. That, the Petitioners have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence as they have nothing to do with the same. That, the informant has taken advantage of registration of some false cases against the Petitioner Shripad @ Nilesh Paradkar in the past; most of which have already been ended in his acquittal. He submitted that, from the perusal of F.I.R. No. 56 of 2015, no offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 (Part II) of I.P.C. is made out against the Petitioners. He therefore prayed that, the Prior Approval granted by the Respondent No.2 may be quashed and set aside.

4.1) Mr. Khandare, learned Advocate appearing for Petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 956 of 2015 supported and adopted all the arguments of Mr. Desai and also prayed that, the Prior Approval granted by the Respondent No.2 be quashed and set aside.

4.2) Mr. Gavand, learned A.P.P. opposed both the Petitions and submitted that, the Competent Authority has granted Prior Approval after taking into consideration all the necessary and relevant parameters required under the M.C.O.C. Act, while granting it. That, the provisions of M.C.O.C. Act have been applied to CR No. 56 of 2015 originally registered with Bhandup Police Station, Mumbai and subsequently transferred to DCB CID, Unit-7, Ghatkopar having re-numbered CR No. 25 of 2015 for further investigation. It was noticed to the Investigating Agency that, more than one chargesheet in offences punishable with imprisonment of 3 years or more have been filed against the Petitioner Shripad @ Nilesh Paradkar in the preceding 10 years and the Competent Courts have taken cognizance of the said offences. It was also revealed that, both the Petitioners were/ are working as members of Organised Crime Syndicate headed by Chhota Rajan Gang. That, the present crime is committed by a Organised Crime Syndicate headed by gangster Chhota Rajan