Bombay High Court While Refusing To Quash FIR Against Ex-MLA For Constructing ‘Tipu Sultan Chowk’ Without Permission
The Bombay Excessive Courtroom has refused to quash the FIR in opposition to Ex-MLA and AIMIM Chief Farukh Shah accused of illegally setting up Tipu Sultan Chowk with out permission, and rebuked his Advocate for producing a doc with out verifying its supply, on mere instruction.
The Courtroom was contemplating an Utility in search of quashing of an FIR registered for the offence punishable beneath Sections 153-A, 295-A, 504, 505 (1), 506, 124(A), 120-B, 404 learn with Part 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Part 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1995.
The Division Bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh noticed,“…A public sq. (chowk), street or place can’t be named by the M.L.A. on his personal. There’s a process beneath the Maharashtra Municipalities Act in addition to Maharashtra Municipal Firms Act, whereby the proposal is required to be tabled earlier than the involved authority i.e. the final physique assembly of the elected members after which after the consensus, such place can be named accordingly. Now the applicant at one place, i.e. in Floor No. (VIII) of the Utility, 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 remains to be happening and from the report of the police it seems that there’s some proof, whether or not it’s linked with the applicant or not can be a distinct query, however within the stated circumstances it can’t be stated that it is a match case the place we should always train our powers beneath Part 482 of the Code of Felony Process.”
The Applicant was represented by Advocate S.S. Kazi, whereas the Respondent was represented by Extra Public Prosecutor A.R. Kale.
Information of the Case
Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the FIR was filed with mala fide intention beneath the affect of a political rival. It was alleged by the informant that with the development of the chowk, the Applicant created hatred amongst two communities.
The Counsel went on to argue that the Respondent No.2 was making an attempt to settle political scores as he’s from a rival political group. He additional argued that there is no such thing as a query of offence beneath Part 153-A, 295-A, 504, 505(1), 506 of the Indian Penal Code getting concerned within the matter as Tipu Sultan was the liberty fighter of India and nice warrior and due to this fact, giving identify of the stated particular person can not entice any felony prosecution.
The Extra Public Prosecutor, alternatively, submitted that there seems to be some proof to indicate that there was a building made within the chowk which was demolished and the applicant had not taken any efforts to see that unlawful building is just not made. He additional submitted that there’s additionally some proof to indicate that the accused has made abusive feedback on his social media Fb account and Instagram in opposition to Shri Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj.
Reasoning By Courtroom
The Courtroom, on the outset, took notice of the truth that an inquiry has been ordered into how the Petitioner obtained a replica of the supplementary assertion.
“…We afraid given that the stated doc has been endorsed as true copy and except the discovered Advocate himself has not seen the copy or has not taken directions concerning the supply of that doc from the place his shopper has fetched that, he ought to not have endorsed it as true copy. After we identified this reality and requested the discovered Advocate for the applicant about the identical, he has tendered apology….”, the Courtroom noticed.
It confused that when the Police Officers disclose that there is no such thing as a such doc in existence, nor was it given to anyone, the query would nonetheless be, as to how both the informant or the Petitioner obtained such a doc.
“It’s completely not correct on the a part of a celebration to supply a doc by acquiring the custody of such doc in in any other case method. It’s the bounden obligation of the Advocate representing such occasion to think about whether or not the stated doc has come to his shopper by authorized means or not. Merely as a result of his shopper is asking him to supply, the Advocate mustn’t run the danger of manufacturing such doc earlier than any Courtroom of legislation the place he can not clarify the supply from which the shopper has fetched the doc,” the Courtroom noticed.
The Courtroom refused to quash the FIR in view of the truth that there exists prima facie proof and investigation is happening.
The Petition was accordingly rejected.
Trigger Title: Farukh Shah vs. The State of Maharashtra (2025:BHC-AUG:16020-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioner– Advocate S.S. Kazi,
Respondent– Extra Public Prosecutor A.R. Kale, Advocate Chetan B. Chaudhari
