SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
V.M. Deshpande and Amit B. Borkar, JJ.
Dr. Lokpriya Uddhav Sakhare —Petitioner
versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. —Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No.144 of 2022
Decided on 13.4.2022

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Shri. Firdos Mirza, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Shri. S.M. Ghodeswar, A.P.P.

IMPORTANT POINT
Criminal prosecution cannot be interdicted in offences involving crime Syndicates.

Headnote:

Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999 – Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) and 4 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Sanction for prosecution – First informant and her husband were allured by persons named in FIR to part with Rs.41,00,000/- with assurance that her daughter will get admission in Government Medical College – Present petitioner is Assistant Professor at a Government Medical College – Petitioner is shown as one of members of Crime Syndicate – Present petition is nothing but to see that investigation is stalled and to create various hurdles in further investigation in very serious offence – At this stage, it would not be proper on part of Court to make any comment on entire prosecution case inasmuch as free hand will have to be given to Investigating Officer and prosecuting agency to bring on record other victims also – There is nexus of present petitioner with crime syndicate – Criminal Writ Petition dismissed. (Paras 6, 8, 13 and 14)

Result: Criminal Writ Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

V.M. Deshpande, J.—Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Heard Shri Firdos Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. M. Ghodeswar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

3. Though very attractive arguments were made by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court, closure scrutiny of the entire case of the prosecution, which is presented before this Court in reply, we are of the view that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner needs to be rejected.

4. This case has a genesis of how parents are desperate to see that their progeny/child/ward is admitted in professional course like medicines and for that there can be allurement by the sharks which are having a free swing in the society and they always look for their pray and such parents are the easiest one.

5. An offence was registered with Police Station, Ajni, Nagpur by one Dr. Shilpa Suresh Dhekle, a Medical Practitioner at Pune. She was very much interested to see that her daughter is admitted in medical course. Since, the challenge in this writ petition is only in respect of the order passed by respondent no.1 – Director General Of Police, Nagpur, dated 25.01.2022 granting sanction under Section 23(2) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime (MCOC) Act, 1999, we will not comment on the merits and demerits of the first information report since it will cause prejudice not only to the accused persons, but also to the prosecution.

6. Suffice to say, the first informant and her husband were allured by the persons named in the first information report to part with Rs.41,00,000/- (Rupees Forty one lakhs only) with an assurance that her daughter will get admission in Government Medical College. The present petitioner is the Assistant Professor at a Government Medical College. The first information report describes him as “Sakhare Mama”. Incidentally the surname of the present petitioner is Sakhare. After registration of the crime, it appears that the petitioner was apprehending his arrest and therefore, he approached before the learned Judge of the trial Court by moving an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, he was unsuccessful. Therefore, he approached to this Court by filing an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is registered as Criminal Application (ABA) No. 761/2021 and the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court (Coram : Vinay Joshi, J.) on 02.11.2021 has protected the petitioner from his arrest. It is informed to the Court that as on today, ABA No. 761/2021 is awaiting its final verdict from the Court and the interim protection is in operation in favour of the petitioner.

7. In the meanwhile, a proposal was submitted by the authority from the Economic Offences Wing to the Competent Authority under the MCOC Act for seeking accord of sanction to invoke the provisions of the MCOC Act. The respondent no.1 authority by the impugned order has granted the sanction. The same is challenged before this Court.

8. The submission of the petitioner before this Court is that he is not the accused in any of the offences which are registered against the syndicate though the petitioner is shown as one of the members of the said syndicate. He submits that as on today two charge-sheets against the present petitioner are not filed and therefore, the sanction granted by the authority needs to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited our attention to the verdict given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahipal Singh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in (2014) 11 SCC 282 and submitted that the case of the petitioner is completely covered by the said authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Incidentally he has also relied upon the decisions of this Court, of which the copies are annexed along with th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top