New Delhi: The Supreme Court yesterday dismissed a petition of Additional Director General of Gujarat Police Puthvipal P Pandey challenging an arrest warrant issued against him in the 2004 staged shoot-out killing of Ishrat Jahan and three others.
The apex court bench of Justice Gyan Sudha Misra and Justice Madan B Lokur said the petitioner, a Gujarat cadre Indian Police Service officer, could not approach them for challenging the arrest warrant issued by a magistrate without approaching the high court.
Besides seeking the quashing of the arrest warrant, Pandey had sought the quashing of the second first information report filed in the case on the direction of the Gujarat High Court after the investigation was handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
An Ahmedabad magistrate had issued the non-bailable arrest warrant against Pandey on May 2. The CBI has told the apex court that Pandey is absconding. Mumbai college girl Ishrat Jahan, Pranesh Gopinath Pilai, Amjad Ali and Jishan Johar were killed by Gujarat police in a staged shoot-out on June 15, 2004, in Ahmedabad.
At the outset of the hearing, senior counsel Shekhar Naphade, appearing for the police officer, told the court that matter may be adjourned for the next day (Wednesday) as Pandey had filed another petition challenging the December 1, 2011, high court order directing the registration of the second FIR in the shootout case and handing over the investigation to the CBI.
Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaisinh opposed the adjournment plea and said the Gujarat Police officer moved court to challenge the December 1, 2011, order of the high court only after she pointed out in the course of the last hearing that the order by which investigation was handed over to the CBI had never been impugned.
As Naphade pressed his plea for adjournment, the court said the subject matter of the plea before the court was different from one being raised by him. The court told Naphade that the question was whether plea for quashing of the FIR could be gone into under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Jaisinh opposed the suggestion of maintaining status quo till the matter was taken up for hearing, which meant that the warrant against Pandey would not be enforced. IANS
