Bombay High Court bemused after NCP split leaves State lawyer uncertain on whether to continue arguments against Ajit Pawar faction MLA

The recent change in political disposition of a section of Maharashtra MLAs belonging to the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) seems to have had an effect on cases before courts involving lawmakers..The Bombay High Court was on Thursday privy to one such fallout when the lawyer appearing for the Maharashtra Police against NCP MLA Hasan Mushrif was uncertain about whether he should continue to make arguments in a cheating case against the MLA. Mushrif belongs to NCP's Ajit Pawar faction which has now joined the BJP government in the State with Pawar himself being appointed Deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra.A division bench of Justices Nitin Sambre and RN Laddha was hearing a plea filed by Mushrif quashing of the first information report (FIR) registered against him in Kolhapur on charges of cheating. He was booked in the case when he was part of the “unsplit NCP” and a judicial magistrate in Kolhapur had even issued process against him..During the hearing of the quashing plea on July 6, the public prosecutor JP Yagnik sought an adjournment to take instructions citing “change in circumstances”.The Court could not hide its amusement at the request and asked in lighter vein whether the prosecutor was appearing for the accused or the State.The Court also enquired whether the investigating officer was present in the courtroom to which the prosecutor replied in negative..Senior Advocate Abad Ponda, appearing for Mushrif, apprised the court that there were cross complaints in the case which the police was investigating; however there was protection from arrest granted to Mushrif..At the request of the prosecutor, the Court adjourned the case for hearing to August 22 and extended the order of interim protection. The bench also called for the report of the principal district judge of Pune court who had issued process against Mushrif in the case..As per the FIR, 40,000 farmers who had been asked by Mushrif to invest in a sugar factory in 2012, were not issued share certificates after they made such investments. In the plea seeking to quash the FIR, Mushrif alleged that the case lodged at the behest of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Kirit Somaiya. Based on the FIR, even the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had also registered a separate money laundering case against Mushrif in 2022.A co-ordinate bench of the High Court had earlier directed the principal district judge of Pune to conduct an enquiry to find out how Kirit Somaiya managed to procure a copy of an order of the magistrate in relation to the case against Mushrif when Somaiya was not even a party to the proceedings.