Deepali Kalia –
Bombay High Court adjourned the Maharashtra government’s plea through the Additional Chief Secretary of the Home Department which had sought deletion of portions in CBI’s FIR against Anil Deshmukh, former State Home Minister and others, till June 18.
The plea by former State Home Minister seeking to quash the conspiracy and corruption charges levelled against him in CBI’s FIR was also adjourned by the Court till June 18.
A Bench comprising Justices SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar had directed both the parties to complete all of their pleadings in the case by June 16.
CBI had made a statement before the court that it would not proceed against the State and would not seek documentation from the State government for their investigation in the alleged corruption in police transfers and postings till June 19.
Maharashtra government’s plea had sought to quash mainly two paragraphs in CBI’s FIR, one which pertained to alleged exercising of undue influence over the police transfers and the other which talked about reinstatement of Sachin Waze, Assistant Police Inspector.
It is alleged by the State government that through the two paragraphs, CBI intended to carry out a “fishing and roving inquiry” and aid the political opponents to “destabilize the present government in the Petitioner State.”
The petition further claimed that CBI had acted in violation of section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, as this section prohibited the Investigation agency from exercising its powers in the State which had revoked its consent for the CBI to operate, except with leave of High Court and Supreme Court.
Advocate Jaishri Patil stated that she wanted to intervene in the matter. She said that the dismissed cop Sachin Waze is a necessary party to the case.
“They are like Romeo and Juliet (State and CBI), necessary party is Sachin Waze. He should be made a party, the petition should be dismissed.” Patil added.
Patil was directed by the Court to file her Intervention Application and affidavit by June 14. Meanwhile, the State could file its reply by June 16.
The Bench then adjourned the matter to June 18.