HC refuses to quash FIR against Bhujbal's co-accused

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday

refused to set aside an FIR registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) against a former government official accused in a corruption case in which NCP leader Chhagan Bhujbal is also an accused.

A division bench of Chief Justice B P Dharmadhikari and Justice N R Borkar was hearing a petition filed by Deodutta Marathe, former secretary of the Public Works Department (PWD), seeking to quash a case lodged against him by the Maharashtra police's ACB.

The ACB, in June 2015, registered a first information report against Marathe and NCP leader and former PWD minister Chhagan Bhujbal, his son Pankaj Bhujbal, nephew Sameer Bhujbal and 15 others for criminal conspiracy and cheating under the IPC, and also under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

 

Chhagan Bhujbal is now Food and Civil Supply Minister.

The ACB alleged corruption in the awarding of contract for Maharashtra Sadan, a state government guest house in Delhi, and for development of a plot of Regional Transport Office (RTO) in suburban Andheri in Mumbai to Chamankar Enterprises.

"Prima facie (on the face of it) violation of provisions of law is seen," the division bench said on Tuesday.

It agreed with special public prosecutor Pradeep Gharat's contention that there was enough material on record for the trial in the case to proceed, and the case cannot be quashed.

As per the ACB, the private company had sought a No Objection Certificate from the RTO for using some portion of its land for redevelopment of a slum. But the RTO rejected the application.

The RTO had said if land was given for slum rehabilitation, it would not have enough land to build its own proposed office.

ACB alleged that later the accused, including Marathe, fabricated records and twisted facts and eventually Chamankar Enterprises' proposal was accepted.

Marathe's lawyer Manoj Mohite argued that the petitioner had opposed the proposal, but despite that the then deputy chief minister (Chhagan Bhujbal) proceeded in the matter.

"Marathe had duly performed his part of duty by pointing out the lacunae in the proposal but his objections were overlooked...hence the case needs to be quashed and set aside," the lawyer had argued.