In a major setback to Maharashtra’s former Home Minister Anil Deshmukh refuses to quash the First Information Report (FIR) filed against him by the CBI under the Prevention of Corruption Act, after holding that Deshmukh’s petition deserved to be “dismissed”.

Hearing a petition filed by Deshmukh, a HC of Justices SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar held that for reasons cited in the judgement, the plea by the State’s former Minister deserved to be dismissed, and asked the Registrar General to return the investigation papers to the CBI.

After hearing both sides, the HC bench had reserved the ruling in the case for ruling on July 12. It had directed the CBI to submit its report on the investigation conducted so far.

On his part senior Advocate Amit Desai representing Deshmukh, prayed for a stay on the effect of the order passed by the court as it involved important questions of law which required to be studied for taking appropriate steps.

However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for CBI, opposed petitioner’s request. stating that no question of law was involved.

The HC bench rejected Desai;s request for  stay on the effect of the order, byu saying that no substantial question of law was involved.

Seeking the quashing of FIR filed by the CBI, Deshmukh – who has been charged with corruption and criminal conspiracy, told the court that the investigating agency had  failed to obtain requisite sanction prior to registering the FIR, as he was a public servant at the time of registering offence.

Desai told the court that before filing the FIR against Deshmukh, the CBI should have applied for permission from the Maharashtra government as required under the Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, after completing the Preliminary Enquiry ordered by the high court.

Obtaining consent from the Maharashtra Government was essential considering    that the allegations made against him by Mumbai’s former police commissioner Param Bir Singh could easily have been a “false” allegation, Desai said.

 Among other things, Desai told the court that the high court had relied two documents – a complaint made by Dr Jaishree Patil and a letter written by the by Param Bir Singh – did not contain first hand information which was necessary to initiate investigations, but contained mere “suspicions, whispers and allegations”.

Contending that Deshmukh was trying to revisit the HC ruling ordering PE into the allegations against Deshmukh, Additional Solicitor General Aman Lekhi appearing for CBI opposed the petition, by saying that the Court’s order had been upheld by the Supreme Court

Lekhi argued that the allegations that the CBI was investigation was not based     not hearsay because Deshmukh had asked now suspended and incarcerated Mumbai police officer Sachin Vaze to exhort money from hotels and bars.

The court that requirement of sanction under Section 17A was deemed unnecessary the moment the Court ordered the enquiry based on a thorough consideration of the material before it. The section 17A could not be used as a shield to protect a wrongdoer, he told the court.

In his petition filed by him challenging the FIR, Deshmukh had also told the high court that the CBI had based its FIR on the “vague allegations” and that there was no case of allegations of ‘illegal gratification’’ under section 7 of PCA or criminal

conspiracy under section 120-B of the IPC.

In his petition filed on May 5 he had also told the court that the CBI had not taken the Maharashtra government’s consent to register the FIR against him which he said was necessary since he was a minister when the alleged offence took place.