Put On Hold Investigations Against Param Bir Singh Till Final Decision On Plea For CBI Probe : Supreme Court Tells Maharashtra Govt

The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned the petition filed by ex-Mumbai Police Commissioner Parambir Singh to March 9, 2022. The Court said that it will take a call as to whether investigation is to be transferred to the CBI or not.

While posting the petition seeking protection from coercive steps by Mumbai police in the cases registered against Param Bir Singh for final disposal, the bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh asked the State of Maharashtra to completely stay its hands off with regards to the ongoing investigation till the Top court decides the issue.

The bench also recorded the assurance of the State of Maharashtra of putting the matter on hold.

Remarking that if it were to be inclined to pass an order of transferring the cases to CBI, investigation being completed would cause problems, the bench in its order said,

"We have now put down matter for final hearing & if we were to be inclined to pass an order as per what the CBI & petitioner says, investigation being completed would cause problems. Senior Advocate Darious Khambata assures that in all senses the matter will be on hold, we take the assurance on record."

The bench also orally remarked that the situation was a "very unfortunate one having the propensity of unnecessarily shaking people's confidence in the police system."

"We have had occasion to say earlier that it is a messy state of affairs. Very unfortunate situation. It has the propensity of unnecessarily shaking the confidence of people in the police system. Process of law must be carried on in a particular manner," remarked Justice SK Kaul, the presiding judge of the bench.

Earlier, after being told that the State of Maharashtra has filed a Special Leave Petition challenging the order of the Bombay High Court which had refused its prayer to formulate an SIT to investigate the allegations leveled by Parambir Singh against former Home Minister Anil Deshmukh, the bench had adjourned the matter.

Courtroom Exchange

When the matter was called for hearing, Senior Advocate Puneet Bali for Parambir Singh apprised the bench with regards non listing of the SLP filed by the State of Maharashtra challenging Bombay High Court's order of refusing to formulate SIT to investigate allegations leveled by Singh against former Home Minister Anil Deshmukh.

"This is a deliberate attempt to not get the SLP listed. Look at the audacity of the State to approach the High Court for quashing the FIR registered by CBI. When your lordship says that the matter should be enquired by the CBI, FIR is registered by CBI & State of Maharashtra approaches High Court for quashing of FIR by CBI. I have never seen the High Court passing such an order. Superseding Supreme Court's order," submitted Senior Counsel.

Submitting that the State has filed challans in one of the FIR, Bali said, "They have presented challan in one of the FIR's. This is absolutely going out of hand. If these are not matters to go to the CBI, then what?"

"What has happened to your SLP Mr Khambata? If you want something to be listed you can get it listed. It's CJI's prerogative. We must know your fate. As the position stands now, there is no impediment in handing over to CBI. But in perspective of larger contour we allowed the High Court to see this but this conduct is not proper," remarked Justice Kaul.

Responding to the questions posed by the bench, Senior Advocate Mr. Darius Khambata appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra submitted that the SLP had been numbered. He also assured to get the same listed.

"It has no bearing at all," submitted Senior Advocate Puneet Bali.

"Then we can proceed with the High Court's judgment as the correct view & proceed. In view of nature is going on, if one set of investigation has gone to CBI, we have to see if this also should not go to CBI or not. Suppose in our view whether it had some link where court says that CBI should not investigate on the issue. That is what pursued us to defer the matter. We will proceed now that there is no objection to you other than the merits of the case," Justice Kaul said.

With regards to filing of challan, Senior Advocate Darius Khambata submitted that although challans were filed against other accused(s), the same were not filed against Singh.

"There was a red herring that challans have been filed against Parambir Singh. We have not filed a challan in his case. We have clearly said in form 5C that it's not against the petitioner. All of these are attempts to prejudice," submitted Senior Advocate Darius Khambata.

"We have had occasion to say earlier that it is a messy state of affairs. Very unfortunate situation. It has the propensity of unnecessarily shaking the confidence of people in the police system. Process of law must be carried on in a particular manner," remarked Justice SK Kaul.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta at this juncture entered appearance and submitted for transferring the probe to CBI. He also submitted that proceeding with the investigation, recording the statements would tend to make CBI's case difficult and would take the investigation in a particular direction.

"It is in the interest of things that all FIR's should be handed over to one agency & I believe that it should be CBI. Once you proceed with investigation & start recording statements, you tend to make CBI's case difficult. Recording statements etc does take investigation in a particular direction," submitted SG Tushar Mehta.

The bench at this juncture while posting the matter for final disposal for March 9, 2022 for taking a call as to whether investigation is to be transferred to the CBI or not, asked the State of Maharashtra to completely stay its hands.

The bench also de-tagged the plea filed by Journalist Binu Varghese against whom Mumbai Police had registered a case of extortion along with Param Bir Singh and adjourned the same for April 5, 2022. Directions for continuing the interim order with regards to protection from arrest was also made.

Case Title: Param Bir Singh v State Of Maharashtra| SLP (Criminal) 8788/2021