The Bombay High Court has recently stayed any further proceedings related to the FIR against Baramati Agro Ltd, a firm controlled by Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) MLA Rohit Pawar.
The FIR was filed on charges of alleged disobedience of an order passed by a public servant. Sanjay Gonde, the Regional Joint Director (Sugar), lodged the FIR based on the original complaint by BJP MLC Ram Shinde, who lost to Rohit Pawar in the 2019 assembly elections.
A division bench of Justice Nitin W Sambre and Justice Rajesh N Laddha heard the writ plea by Subhash Gulave, the executive director of the company.
The bench scheduled the matter for hearing on September 11 and ordered a stay on further proceedings until then.
In the plea, Gulave mentioned that in a Cabinet meeting on September 19, 2022, a decision was made to begin the sugarcane crushing season 2022-23 from October 15. Criminal action was to be taken against the Executive Director of any sugar factory that initiated crushing before the specified date.
As per the plea, Shinde falsely alleged in his complaint to the Sugar Commissioner that the petitioner’s company began sugarcane crushing on October 10, 2022. Subsequently, a special auditor, Ajay Deshmukh, was appointed to investigate the charges. Deshmukh’s report confirmed that the crushing season did not start before the stipulated date, as alleged by Shinde. However, Shinde objected to the report, leading to Deshmukh’s suspension.
Another officer, Dnyandev Mukane (Additional Registrar- credit society), was then appointed to re-examine the allegations. According to the plea, Mukane’s report, submitted on December 7, 2022, confirmed Shinde’s allegations, and the company was not given the opportunity to defend against these claims.
The FIR under Section 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) of the IPC was registered based on Mukane’s report, which the company is challenging in the High Court.
The company asserted that the show cause notice revealed that Mukane’s findings were based on frivolous material, including photographs and videos provided by Shinde, and lacked independent application of mind. Consequently, the firm approached the High Court, seeking to quash and set aside the FIR.
Pending the hearing of the plea, the petitioner sought a stay on the proceedings arising from the FIR.
