Bombay High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against AIMIM Leader Accused Of Illegally Constructing Public Square In Tipu Sultan’s Name
The Bombay Excessive Courtroom refused to quash an FIR registered in opposition to All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) chief and former MLA Farukh Shah accused of illegally setting up a public sq. within the identify of Tipu Sultan in Dhule by allegedly using public funds.
In doing so the court docket noticed that the probe was ongoing to seek out out as to who had erected the development and whether or not permission was taken for a similar including underscoring that public sq. can’t be named by an MLA with out following process laid down in regulation. It additionally famous that on one hand Shah defended the act of naming the sq. and however he was additionally claiming innocence which can not go collectively.
In keeping with the primary informant, the applicant had constructed a raised platform with out acquiring any permission and named it as ‘Tipu Sultan Chowk’, and this act on the applicant’s half created hatred amongst two communities.
A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay A Deshmukh in its order stated:
“The applicant was elected as M.L.A., as a candidate from a political get together. Merely as a result of there’s a rivalry, we can not see the FIR within the tainted method and the sitting M.L.A. then ought to safe the doc in in any other case method and shouldn’t disclose the supply thereof to his Advocate on the time of submitting of the Software. We deprecate such follow. The actual fact is that now the investigation continues to be happening and who had erected the development within the chowk, whether or not permission to assemble was obtained or not, whether or not the funds which have been out there for M.L.A. have been utilized for making that development, the investigation is underway“
“All of the individuals together with the individuals hooked up to political get together are required to acquire development permission below the native bylaws of the native municipal authority. A public sq. (chowk), highway or place can’t be named by the M.L.A. on his personal,” the court docket stated including that there’s a process below the Maharashtra Municipalities Act in addition to Maharashtra Municipal Firms Act.
As per the Acts a 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 could be named accordingly.
“Now the applicant at one place, i.e. in Floor No. (VIII) of the Software, is supporting the act of naming the sq. within the identify of Tipu Sultan and in Floor No. (IX) he’s claiming innocence. Each these acts can not go collectively. When the investigation continues to be happening and from the report of the police it seems that there is a few proof, whether or not it’s linked with the applicant or not could be a unique query, however within the stated circumstances it can’t be stated that it is a match case the place we must always train our powers below Part 482 of the Code of Prison Process,” the court docket added.
The excessive court docket thus refused to quash the FIR and dismissed Shah’s plea.
Shah had moved the excessive court docket in search of quashing of a 2023 FIR for the offence punishable below offences together with Sections 153-A(Selling enmity between completely different teams on grounds of faith, race, place of origin, residence, language, and many others., and doing acts prejudicial to upkeep of concord), 295-A(Deliberate and malicious acts, supposed to outrage non secular emotions of any class by insulting its faith or non secular beliefs), 504(Intentional insult with intent to impress breach of the peace), 505 (1)(Statements conducing to public mischief), 506, 124(A)(Sedition), 120-B(Prison Conspiracy) IPC, Part 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Defacement of Property Act.
He claimed that offences weren’t attracted arguing that Tipu Sultan was the liberty fighter of India and nice warrior and subsequently, giving identify of the stated particular person can not appeal to any legal prosecution.
With respect to the query as to how Shah obtained the supplementary chargesheet when it was not given to anyone the court docket stated,”The details nonetheless stay that when the law enforcement officials disclose that there isn’t a such doc in existence nor it was given to anyone, the query would nonetheless be, as to how both the informant or the applicant obtained such doc. The stated Sub Divisional Police Officer, Dhule Metropolis has acknowledged that he has ordered an inquiry. We hope that the inquiry could be accomplished. It’s completely not correct on the a part of a get together to provide a doc by acquiring the custody of such doc in in any other case method”.
It additional noticed that it’s the responsibility of the Advocate representing such get together to think about whether or not the stated doc has come to his consumer by authorized means or not.
Merely as a result of his consumer is asking him to provide, the Advocate ought to not run the danger of manufacturing such doc earlier than any Courtroom of regulation the place he can not clarify the supply from which the consumer has fetched the doc, the court docket underscored.
Case title: Farukh Shah v/s State of Maharashtra
