Mumbai:  The Bombay high court (HC) on Friday adjourned the hearing of the petition filed by deputy police commissioner (DCP) Akbar Pathan, seeking the quashing of a first information report (FIR) registered by Marine Drive police. The FIR has named Pathan as a co-accused along with former Mumbai Police commissioner Param Bir Singh and four other officers in an extortion and cheating case based on a complaint by Bhayandar developer Sham SundarAgarwal. The adjournment came after additional public prosecutor JayeshYagnik for Mumbai Police sought time for a special counsel to appear on their behalf and gave an oral assurance that no coercive action would be taken against the Pathan till the next hearing. The other police officers named in the case apart are assistant commissioners of police (ACP) Sanjay Patil and ShrikantShinde and inspectors AshaKorke and NandkumarGopale.

A division bench of justice SS Shinde and justice NJ Jamadar, while hearing Pathan’s petition, was informed that apart from the police officers, two civilians – Sanjay Punamia and Sunil Jain – who were also named in the FIR are in police custody, and hence, the petitioner sought protection. Punamiya and Jain have also filed petitions in HC seeking quashing of the FIR against them. According to Agarwal’s complaint, Punamiya, Jain and the police officers had connived together and falsely implicated him in a case, and then demanded  50 lakh and a 2BHK (bedroom-hall-kitchen) flat in Bhayandar from him to prevent his arrest under the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).

Pathan’s counsel, advocateNiteenPradhan, argued that the FIR was registered arbitrarily to hamper the probe to unravel Agarwal’s alleged underworld connection. Pradhan added that as Pathan was a DCP, the FIR could not have been registered against him directly and a preliminary inquiry was required to be carried out initially to ascertain if the allegations made against a public servant are true. He said the Prevention of Corruption Act prescribes a preliminary probe, and then an open inquiry can be conducted. Once the authorities were satisfied, they could grant sanction to register an FIR. Refuting the allegations of Pathan’s role in the extortion case, Pradhan argued that if the FIR was not quashed and the probe against Agarwal was scuttled, it would demoralise the department for investigating instances in which the underworld was involved in an organised crime. The bench has posted the matter for hearing to August 5.

4