MAPUSA
After nearly eight years, a Mapusa court has directed the Porvorim Police to register a first information report (FIR) against former tourism minister Dilip Parulekar, then attorney of the Comunidade of Serula Peter Martins, then Administrator of Comunidade (North Zone) Irene Sequeira, along with Pramod Parulekar and other office bearers of the Comunidade.
Earlier this week, the Additional Sessions Court in Mapusa dismissed a revision petition by the government (Porvorim Police) and upheld the Judicial Magistrate First Class's (JMFC) order to register an FIR against the accused, including the former tourism minister.
The case originated from a complaint lodged at Porvorim Police Station on October 18, 2014.
The complaint filed by Trajano D’Mello alleged that the former tourism minister, along with others, engaged in a criminal conspiracy to fraudulently transfer prime land belonging to the Comunidade of Serula.
The complainant claimed there was a criminal breach of trust by a public servant, as one of the accused, Dilip Parulekar, was then minister for tourism, thereby cheating the Communidade of its property.
Despite the complaint disclosing cognizable offences, Porvorim Police initially refused to register it, compelling the complainant to approach the JMFC.
After reviewing the contentions, the JMFC ruled that a case was made out and directed the registration of the FIR.
The case subsequently moved through various courts, including the High Court, which ultimately directed the Additional Sessions Court to decide on the merits. In his order, Additional Sessions Judge-2 Bosco Roberts emphasised the mandatory nature of registering an FIR when a complaint reveals cognisable offences.
Judge Roberts noted there was a direct allegation of cheating for wrongful gain, making Section 420 of the IPC applicable.
He rejected the Public Prosecutor’s argument that the offences were not applicable to the former tourism minister, stating that there were clear allegations of criminal conspiracy involving all accused, including Parulekar.
The court also dismissed the Public Prosecutor's claim that sanction for prosecution was required under Section 197 CrPC to register the FIR against Parulekar.
Judge Roberts clarified that sanction is necessary only for the court to take cognisance of the prosecution of a public servant, not for the registration of an FIR.
The purpose of registering an FIR is to commence an investigation into the alleged offences, the court observed.
Judge Roberts concluded there was no merit in the revision application, affirming the JMFC's order for mandatory registration of the FIR and initiation of the investigation.
