Bombay HC Denies Relief To Ex-MLA For Illegally Naming Chowk ‘Tipu Sultan’
Thanks for studying this put up, remember to subscribe!
Bombay Excessive Court docket refused to quash FIR towards ex-AIMIM MLA Farukh Shah for illegally constructing and naming a public sq.. Court docket dominated he violated authorized procedures and misused public funds.
Mumbai: At the moment, on June 30, the Bombay Excessive Court docket at Aurangabad has just lately refused to cancel the First Data Report (FIR) filed towards former AIMIM MLA Farukh Shah.
He’s accused of utilizing authorities cash to construct a public sq. in Dhule and naming it ‘Tipu Sultan Chowk’ with out following the correct authorized course of.
ALSO READ: “No Reason to Bar the Rally” – Bombay HC Clears AIMIM’s Tipu Sultan Jayanti Event in Pune
A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay A Deshmukh made it clear {that a} Member of the Legislative Meeting (MLA) doesn’t have the ability to call a public place on his personal.
The judges acknowledged,
“A public sq. (chowk), highway or place can’t be named by the MLA on his personal. There’s a process below the Maharashtra Municipalities Act in addition to Maharashtra Municipal Companies Act, whereby the proposal is required to be tabled earlier than the involved authority i.e. the overall physique assembly of the elected members after which after the consensus, such place can be named accordingly.”
The Court docket additionally seen that there have been contradictions in Shah’s arguments. On one hand, Shah defended the naming of the sq. after Tipu Sultan, however then again, he claimed he didn’t know concerning the building.
The bench remarked,
“Each these acts can not go collectively.”
The FIR was filed in June 2023 primarily based on a criticism by social employee and advocate Rohit Chandole. He alleged that Shah, who was a sitting MLA at the moment, used his place to misuse public funds and assemble a raised platform in Dhule with out permission from the municipality.
Chandole additionally stated that naming the sq. after Tipu Sultan with out following the authorized process created hatred between two communities.
Because of the criticism, Shah was booked by the police below a number of severe sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
These embrace Part 153A for selling enmity between completely different teams, Part 295A for deliberate and malicious acts supposed to insult spiritual beliefs, Part 506 for felony intimidation, Part 124A for sedition, Part 120B for felony conspiracy, and Part 404 for misappropriation of property.
He was additionally charged below state legal guidelines for defacing public property.
Shah’s lawyer argued that your complete case was politically motivated and that the criticism was filed by somebody from a rival political social gathering.
The defence stated that naming a sq. after Tipu Sultan, who is taken into account a historic determine and freedom fighter, was not a criminal offense and didn’t disturb peace between communities.
The defence additionally highlighted a supplementary assertion that the complainant allegedly made months after the unique FIR.
This new assertion included corruption allegations, and the defence argued that this delayed addition made your complete criticism look suspicious.
Nevertheless, the prosecution questioned how Shah had entry to this supplementary assertion. In line with the report filed by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), the assertion had not been formally shared with Shah, and a probe was began to analyze the way it received leaked.
The Court docket criticized the defence for submitting a doc that had not been legally obtained.
The bench stated,
“We deprecate such follow.”
The Court docket added,
“It’s the bounden obligation of the Advocate representing such social gathering to contemplate whether or not the stated doc has come to his shopper by authorized means or not.”
The Court docket additionally identified that there was proof suggesting the unlawful building was carried out below the supervision of a relative of Shah.
It additionally famous that Shah didn’t take any steps to cease the development. The platform has now been demolished.
Furthermore, the Court docket noticed that the police had been nonetheless investigating whether or not public funds had been misused for the development.
It additionally famous that there have been social media posts allegedly made by Shah that contained offensive feedback towards revered historic figures like Vinayak Savarkar and Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj.
Because the investigation continues to be happening, the Court docket refused to cancel the FIR at this stage. The bench selected to not intervene within the matter, stating that it was too early to take action.
Advocate SS Kazi appeared for Farukh Shah. Extra Public Prosecutor AR Kale represented the State. Advocate Chetan B Chaud represented the complainant, Rohit Chandole.
Case Title:
Farukh Shah v State of Maharashtra and anr.
Learn Order:
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Tipu Sultan
