Bombay High Court stays criminal proceedings against Baramati Agro controlled by NCP MLA Rohit Pawar

The Bombay High Court last week stayed criminal proceedings initiated against Baramati Agro Limited, a sugar factory company controlled by Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) lawmaker Rohit Pawar, who is the grandnephew of NCP Chief Sharad Pawar [Subhash Gulave v. State of Maharashtra]..A first information report (FIR) was lodged against Baramati Agro alleging disobedience of an order of a public servant.The criminal complaint was filed by the Regional Joint Director (Sugar) Sanjay Gonde based on the original complaint of a Member of the Legislative Council of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Ram Shinde, who had lost to Pawar in the 2019 assembly elections. The executive director of Baramati Agro, Subhash Ghulave approached the Bombay High Court seeking to quash the FIR. A division bench of Justices Nitin Sambre and RN Laddha posted the matter for hearing on September 11 but stayed the further proceedings till then. .The plea by Gulave pointed out that in September 2022, the State cabinet had resolved in a meeting that the sugarcane crushing season would commence from October 15 and if there is any contravention of this, criminal action would be initiated. Shinde’s complaint claimed that Baramati Agro commenced sugarcane crushing on October 10. The sugar commissioner appointed a special auditor to investigate the charges based on the complaint. The auditor granted a clean chit to the company, which was objected to by Shinde. Later, another auditor was appointed who confirmed the allegations in the complaint and issued a show cause notice to the company directors.After such notice, an FIR came to be lodged against Baramati Agro. .Gulave claimed that the auditor had not given any opportunity to the company to defend the allegations. It had also not given the company any report, Gulave submitted. He added that the company discovered the allegations only after the show cause notice had been issued in March 2023.He, therefore, contended that the auditor’s report did not contain the officer's independent application of mind. In view of this, he requested the Court to quash the FIR arising from such a report and also sought a stay on the proceedings which was granted by the Court..[Read order]