AMARJEETSINGH MOHINDERSINGH BASI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ravi Kadam, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1110 of 2021 and for the Intervener in Writ Petition No.4134 of 2019 at length. He has concluded his argument for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1110 of 2021 and for the intervener in Writ Petition No.4134 of 2019

(2.) The present Writ Petition is filed seeking quashment of the First Information Report bearing C.R.No. 652 of 2020 registered with Hinjewadi Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The petitioner has also filed Interim Application No. 6408 of 2020 seeking an amendment in the Writ Petition by incorporating certain additional grounds and placing on record the copies of orders passed by this Court and certain additional documents. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the report lodged at Hinjewadi Police Station against the petitioner is nothing but reiteration of the allegations giving rise to FIR No. 806 of 2019 registered with Pimpari-Chinchwad Police Station, Pune. It is then submitted by the learned senior counsel that on lodgement of the report at Pimpari-Chinchwad Police Station, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the substantive Writ Petition for seeking quashment of the report. It was then submitted by the learned senior counsel that the petitioner was protected under the orders of this Court including a direction to the respondent-authorities not to take any coercive steps in C.R.No. 806 of 2019 registered with Pimpari- Chinchwad Police Station, Pune. The learned senior counsel then by placing heavy reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court submitted before this Court that petitioner apprehends under the guise of fresh reports, the respondent-authorities, particularly, the police authorities may take steps including effecting arrest of the applicant and his liberty would be curtailed. Learned senior counsel submitted that certain transactions were referred to in the earlier report lodged at the Pimpari-Chinchwad Police Station and those very transactions are again referred against the petitioner in the FIR lodged at Hinjewadi Police Station, Pune and being used against the petitioner. Thus, learned senior counsel for the petitioner vehemently prayed for ad- interim order to the respondent-authorities i.e. direction not to take coercive steps against the petitioner.

(3.) The learned PP while opposing the petition vehemently submitted that there are different transactions and only some transactions are the part of the crime registered at Pimpari-Chinchwad Police Station. The learned PP prays for time to file detailed reply to the petition as well as to the application as it would require sufficient time to hear the senior counsel appearing for the respective parties and appropriate material placed on record.