Bombay High Court Refuses To Quash Land Deal Related Corruption FIR Against NCP Leader Eknath Khadse, Wife

The Bombay High Court refused to quash a 2017 corruption case related to a land deal against former Maharashtra revenue minister and Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) MLC Eknath Khadse, his wife, and son-in-law.

A division bench of Justice Nitin W Sambre and Justice NR Borkar held that applicability of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, requiring prior sanction before conducting enquiry into a public servant, will have to be considered at an appropriate stage as the offence was registered before Section 17A came into force.

“it is a premature stage to consider the claim of the petitioner no.1 (Khadse) for the protection under Section 17A of the Act of 1988. Even otherwise, it cannot be said at this stage that the blanket protection can be enjoyed by the petitioners by taking shelter to Section 17A of the Act of 1988 particularly having regard to the nature of the allegations against the petitioner no.1”, the court further observed.

The petitioners' primary contention rested on the lack of necessary sanctions under Section 17A (inserted into the Act in 2018) and Section 19 of the PC Act, essential for prosecuting public servants. The court pointed out that the petitioners have not demonstrated how Section 17A could apply retroactively.

Khadse, his wife Mandakini Khadse, and son-in-law Girish Chaudhary are booked under Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2), 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), and Section 109 of the IPC.

The case stemmed from the sale of a land parcel in Bhosari, Pune, executed on April 28, 2016. The petitioners entered into a transaction to purchase the land with legal heirs of Rasulbhai Ukani, who previously owned it. This land had been earmarked for acquisition by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC). Despite a notification for acquisition issued in 1968, the petitioners acquired the land in 2016. A complaint was lodged against them, leading to the initiation of criminal proceedings.

Subsequently, the Anti-Corruption Bureau submitted a 'C' Summary Report on April 27, 2018, citing no cognizable offenses. However, objections raised by the complainant led to the withdrawal of the 'C' Summary and permission for further investigation by the Sessions Court.

Thus, they approached the high court for quashing of FIR dated April 10, 2017, registered with Police Station Bund Garden, Pune. Additionally, they challenged an order dated October 21, 2022, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, permitting further investigation.

Senior Advocate Shirish Gupte for the petitioners contended that sanction under Sections 17A and 19(1)(c) of the PC Act is necessary at the stage of registering the offense. He further asserted that the petitioners were falsely implicated due to political differences.

Advocate General Dr. Birendra Saraf argued that section 17A of the PC Act is not applicable retroactively. He emphasized that the court had not yet taken cognizance of the offenses and the petitioners' claims could be addressed during the trial.

The court clarified that the submission of a 'C' Summary Report by the investigating agency does not bind the trial court to accept it. Instead, the trial court retains the authority to scrutinize the report, potentially directing further investigation if deemed necessary. The complainant has the right to object to the summary, as was done in this case, leading to the withdrawal of the 'C' Summary and permission for further investigation, said the court.

Additionally, the court stated that the determination of whether the alleged acts are connected to official duties requires evidence and is premature at this stage. Further, court opined that blanket protection under Section 17A cannot be given at this stage, and the issue of its retrospective or prospective applicability can be addressed during further proceedings.

The court opined that there were no mala fides on the part of the investigating agency in initially submitting and subsequently withdrawing the 'C' summary Report.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition. It clarified that its observations did not prejudice the trial on merits, allowing the petitioners to raise relevant issues at an appropriate stage.

Case no. – Criminal Writ Petition No. 1002 of 2023

Case Title – Eknath Ganpatrao Khadse and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.