Mumbai Bank Fraud: High Court grants interim protection to Darekar from punitive action till December 2

The Bombay High Court on Thursday directed the Economic Offenses Wing (EOW) of Maharashtra Police not to take punitive action against Leader of Opposition in Maharashtra Legislative Council Praveen Darekar, chairman of the Mumbai District Central Co-operative Bank, commonly known as Mumbai’s Central Bank. known as. Bank.

Darekar along with other office bearers has been booked for cheating and embezzlement of money causing loss of more than Rs 100 crore to the bank. The HC granted protection to Darekar till the next hearing on December 2.

A single-judge bench of Justice Sandeep K Shinde was hearing Darekar’s plea against the orders of the magistrate and sessions court, which had cleared the way for a probe.

The FIR was registered against the office bearers of Mumbai Bank, including Darekar, on the complaint of a person named Vivekananda Gupta.

After completion of investigation on the recorded report, on January 18, 2018, the EOW filed a C-summary (closure) report before the magistrate, in which Gupta had stated that he had no complaint with the report and the same could be accepted. .

Subsequently, a person named Pankaj Kotecha filed a protest petition opposing the C-Summary report on the ground that the EOW did not consider his complaint of 2014 and sought an inquiry into the complaint.

The magistrate court on June 16 this year rejected the C-summary report and directed the investigating officer to conduct further investigation. Darekar had challenged the magistrate’s court order in the sessions court and said that Kotecha’s claims contained several misrepresentations and lies.

However, on October 5, the sessions court rejected Darekar’s revision petition, prompting him to move the high court.

Advocate Akhilesh Choubey, appearing for Darekar, submitted that the court could issue notice only to the complainant who was entitled to file a protest petition against the closure report and Kotecha had no personal knowledge of the subject matter of the FIR. The petition states that Kotecha was neither a shareholder nor had any relation with the bank, so he had no right to file a protest petition, so the order by the subordinate court was passed erroneously, in the petition. Having said.

Pending the hearing of the petition, Darekar sought a stay on further investigation. Special public prosecutor Prakash Shetty, appearing for the police on Thursday, sought time to seek directions from the authorities to respond to the plea, following which the court granted interim relief to Darekar from arrest till December 2.