The Bombay High Court has quashed an extortion FIR against former Maharashtra DGP Sanjay Pandey, filed by a builder alleging coercion and misuse of power.
Key Points
- The Bombay High Court quashed an extortion FIR against former Maharashtra DGP Sanjay Pandey.
- The FIR was filed based on a complaint by builder Sanjay Punamiya, alleging extortion in 2021.
- Punamiya claimed Pandey misused his position to coerce false statements and extort money.
- Pandey's lawyer argued the case was a result of political vendetta and cited a three-year delay in filing the FIR.
- The FIR also named advocate Shekhar Jagtap and members of the Agarwal family.
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday quashed an extortion FIR registered against former Maharashtra DGP Sanjay Pandey and other persons in Thane city.
A reasoned order by the bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Suman Shyam is not available yet.
The First Information Report was registered on a complaint lodged by builder-cum-businessman Sanjay Punamiya on August 26, 2024.
Extortion Allegations Against Sanjay Pandey
Punamiya had alleged that Pandey misused his position as DGP to extort money in 2021. Pandey, along with others, coerced him into giving false statements by threatening to unlawfully reopen old cases and fabricate false FIRs to trap him, he claimed.
Further, the businessman claimed that while he was admitted to a hospital, officers, citing Sanjay Pandey's instructions, pressured him to falsely implicate Devendra Fadnavis (then Deputy Chief Minister) and Eknath Shinde (the then Chief Minister) in an alleged Urban Land Ceiling (ULC) scam in exchange for dropping charges against him.
Details of the Complaint
Punamiya alleged his younger brother was threatened and forced to pay Rs 35 lakh out of a demanded Rs 1 crore to avoid further false cases.
Besides Pandey, advocate Shekhar Jagtap, and members of the Agarwal family had also been named in the FIR.
Pandey's Defence and Arguments
Pandey, represented by advocate Rahul Kamerkar, strongly refuted all the allegations.
In his application, seeking quashing of the FIR, Pandey contended that the case is a product of "political vendetta" initiated after his retirement.
The other key arguments raised by Pandey's lawyer include an unexplained three-year delay in registering the FIR.
He pointed out that the alleged events took place in 2021, but the complaint was filed only in 2024.
