1 WP.3530-2010 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3530 OF 2010 Mr. Nitish Janardan Thakur ...Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. ----- Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, i/b Mr. Dhiraj Dhumal, for the Petitioner. Mr. P.A. Pol, PP with Mrs. P.P. Shinde, APP for the State. ---- CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D. SALVI, JJ. JULY 06, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. Perused the affidavit in reply filed by Shri K.S. Hegaje, Dy. Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Raigad- Alibaug, and the progress report of the ongoing investigation submitted by the very same officer through the learned Public Prosecutor on 6.7.2011. 2 WP.3530-2010 3. The petitioner, by this Petition filed under Article 226 read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India prays for a declaration that the enquiry conducted by the State of Maharashtra through Anti Corruption Bureau is illegal, bad in law and null and void, and for further direction to close the said enquiry forthwith. 4. The petitioner entered the State government service as a Section Officer in the department of Rural Development some times in the year 1992 and within a year he came to be appointed to the post of Dy. Collector. He states that one Shri Ramesh Gharat, on account of some family dispute regarding distribution of the ancestral property, submitted a complaint to the ACB, and that resulted into an inquiry undertaken by the ACB-Raigaid. As per the petitioner, the Dy. SP- Raigad had conducted the inquiry and given him a clean chit in the year 2006. The petitioner approached the Additional Chief Secretary by his representation dated 24.9.2010, and requested to stop the harassment by frivolous inquiry, and in response thereto the Home Department, Government of Maharashtra wrote a letter dated 23.11.2010 to the Director General of ACB regarding the progress in the inquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner claims that 3 WP.3530-2010 his mother is more than eighty years of age and she is being harassed by the ACB during the course of inquiry. On all these grounds, the petitioner submits that an inquiry initiated against him is required to be closed, and it cannot be continued for indefinite period keeping the sword of inquiry hanging on his head. 5. The affidavit in reply filed by the Investigating Officer states that the ongoing inquiry initiated against the petitioner is based on the complaint dated 11.4.2007, received by the Director General of ACB, Mumbai and during the course of inquiry it is revealed that the petitioner has floated business ventures with his mother Smt. Chhaya Thakur, and younger brother Nilesh as the trustees of the trust by name Thakur Family Trust. The said trust supervises the business of ‘Lucky Angel Group’ , and the turnover of the group companies is about Rs.300 crores per annum. The said trust has different business ventures and one of them is ‘Acecard Infrasol Pvt. Ltd’, at Vile Parle, Mumbai. The petitioner owns 80% shares of the said firm. The investigations have further revealed that in the ‘Ishtadev Co.Op. Hsg. Scy., Andheri the petitioner has purchased one flat and there are other four residential flats in ‘Someshwar Vaibha Co. Op.Hsg.Scy. at Alibaug. The registered value of the flat in the name of 4 WP.3530-2010 the petitioner is Rs.1,11,00,000/- and his wife also owns flat at Veera Desai Marg, Andheri (West). As per the Investigating Officer, Lucky Angel Group also runs the firm by name ‘Aishwarya Estate and Properties’ and ‘Ajinkya Hotels & Resorts. M/s Acecard Infrasol Pvt. Ltd. holds about Rs. 10 crores in fixed deposits. The statement of the petitioner was recorded on 29.9.2010, and the Investigating officer had issued him a letter dated 12.10.2010 to produce the copies of relevant documents which he did not do. 6. The progress report of the investigation further states that the assets of the petitioner, during the investigation, estimated to the tune of Rs.12,60,62,813/- and these are beyond the assets arising from the known source of income. The investigation report further states that there are benami transactions undertaken and the properties are being acquired in the name of the petitioner’s wife, his brother Nilesh Thakur, a list of which has been set out in the investigation report. The value of the said properties comes to Rs.27,37,34,060/-. Prima facie, the findings of the investigation are that most of these property deals are initiated by the petitioner and his 5 WP.3530-2010 brother Nilesh is being used as a mere front. It has also been pointed out that CR No.53 of 2011 came to be registered against the petitioner and his brother at the behest of Shri Mukeshbahi Lalabhai Vaghela and for the offence punishable under Sections 168, 467, 468, 471, 420, 387, 504, 506(II) read with Section 34 of the IPC, the petitioner was arrested and consequently he came to be suspended from the State Government service and he continues to be under suspension as at present. 7. On our specific query, the Investigating Officer states that the inquiry could be completed in three months time if the petitioner cooperates. In our opinion, the ongoing investigation/inquiry ought to be taken to its logical conclusion, and there is no case made out to grant the relief as prayed for in this Petition. It is for the petitioner to remain present before the Investigating Officer, as and when called upon, and to extend his cooperation to complete the inquiry expeditiously, and more particularly when he is already under suspension. 8. We, therefore, direct that the inquiry be completed before 31st October, 2011. 6 WP.3530-2010 9. Save and except the above directions, the Petition fails and the same is hereby rejected. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)