Thread by @barandbench

Bombay High Court to shortly begin hearing plea filed by MP Navneet Rana and MLA Ravi Rana seeking quashing of assault FIR for threatening to recite Hanuman Chalisa outside CM Uddhav Thackeray’s house.

#NavneetKaurRana #HanumanChalisaRow #UddhavThackeray @MumbaiPolice

APP Madhavi Mhatre sought for matter to be kept back as Special Public Prosecutor is to appear in the matter.

#BombayHighCourt

Adv Rizwan Merchant for the Ranas: Milords may kindly see page 45 of the petition.

Court: Do you have typed copy?

Merchant: No but there is translated copy.

Merchant: This fir is about an incident in which the petitioners were given order under 149 asking them to refrain from reading Hanuman Chalisa.

Merchant: The order said that the recitation would lead to possibility of law and order situation.

this FIR is about an incident that allegedly took place on April 23. This event happened between 5-6 pm.

Merchant: The first FiR is of 4 am in the morning. During the first remand, there was a statement made that sec 124A was added. If you can add 124A then they could have added 353 also.

Merchant: I am not running away from 353 but the same has to be in accordance with the procedure of law.

Merchant: This FiR cannot be allowed to continued. Because the moment bail is granted in this FIR, they will arrest me in the other FIR. I am told there are FIRs in Pune, Osmanabad and Amravati.

Justice SM Modak: the occurences in both FIRs seem to be different. The occurence in first FIR is of morning and the second FIR is of evening. The two occurences do not seem in series, they seem to be independent.

Court: The span of occurrence is a different time. They are independent.

Merchant: The entire incident is of recitation of Hanuman Chalisa outside CM private house. It cannot be demarcated like that.

Court: That is your submission.

Merchant: Section 124A is added in the FIR during remand stating that certain words were uttered showing disaffection against the government.

Merchant: Please see the remand of april 24.

#NavneetKaurRana #HanumanChalisaRow #UddhavThackeray

Merchant: Now this incident of 124A took place at the same time, as per the prosecution, as my arrest, where allegedly I also assaulted the police officer. If 124A could be added then why not 353!

Merchant: What I am submitting is it all comes from the same incident. I was arrested for 153A and bombay police act, then 124A was added, then why could they not add 353 when it all occured at the same time? I am saying I am not shying away from 353.

Court: When you were produced for first offence, they added 124A. So 124A was not there, when he was arrested.
And that they could have added 353?

Merchant: Yes, or they could have taken remand of second FIR also.

#NavneetKaurRana #HanumanChalisaRow #UddhavThackeray

Merchant: their allegation is when I was being brought down from my house, I resisted, but I am saying this lady was not in discharge of official duty because 41A notice was not given.
Had they brought the notice then that would have been discharge of official duties.

Merchant: They registered a particular offence only because PM Narendra Modi was visiting town and they thought there will be law and order situation. But this programme was cancelled, and then I was arrested.

#NavneetKaurRana #HanumanChalisaRow #UddhavThackeray

Merchant: I am treating this as one transaction, it is all part of the same series and there are no separate compartments.

#NavneetKaurRana #HanumanChalisaRow #UddhavThackeray

Merchant: Amish Devgn’s several FIR were quashed but then those FIRs were treated as statements under Section 162 instead of having closure reports and then protest petitions against closure reports.

Merchant: They also did not take oermiss for 124A when they were adding that. I am asking that the fir be quashed. But I am not running away from the charge.

Merchant concludes his submissions.

Court: Now you have admitted that the only objection is to the two firs.
So we will hear this petition finally at admission stage.

Merchant: If not today, then all I ask for is no coercive action against me till next date.

Merchant: I am only seeking this relief because let me be candid, my client was misbehaved with in prison.

Court: Just two days back, we made observations. Even if they are representatives of the people, they have to behave properly with the opposition members as well.

Court: Though we have made these observations, but those words fell on deaf ears. We thought our observations will be considered, better sense will prevail, but whatever we observed just fall on deaf ears.

Court: So we have learnt a lesson that this court shall not expect anything from people occupying responsible positions.

SPP Pradeep Gharat submits: There are different reasons why first FIR is registered.

SPP: They should have surrendered to the police and not resisted.

SPP reads from FIR (in Marathi): That both Ranas refused to co-operate with the police and they had an argument with the police, that they said that the police could not arrest them.

#NavneetKaurRana

SPP: at these juncture we see the facts and that the ingredients show a prima facie offence.
If there is a false case, then then complainant will be liable.
I am saying these are two distinct FIRs.

#NavneetKaurRana #HanumanChalisaControversy

Court: So what the petitioner is saying is 353 should have been part of same offence and not as a separate offence…what are the basic facts for 124A?

SPP: the petitioners wanted to read Hanuman Chalisa before the CM.

SPP: The basic question was could the petitioner read Hanuman Chalisa at CM’s residence?

Court: But 124A was not present when first FiR was registered?

SPP: It is a stringent provision, and there was some investigation remaining. Hence we waited. Even if the relations are cordial… he could have said temple or elsewhere.

SPP: The reading of Hanuman chalisa was merely a challenge. The CM is head of government machinery. They wanted to challenge the machinery.
It was a cold-blooded and calculated move!

Merchant: I just want to correct, that we wanted to read at CM’s residence..

Court: On the street! Your representation says so. In front of residence means street.

Merchant: But it was cancelled.

Court: That does not matter.

Court order: The principal prayer in petition is quashing 506 2022 FIR under 353 of IPC.
Merchant submited and invited our attention to the documents on record.

Order: perusal of contents of report show that since last few days it is submitted in report by complainant who is the lawyer that since last few days some parties have been raising an issue. The petitioners who are MP and MLa of Maharashtra.

Order: As such both are active in social and political life. These petitioners made statement that they would recite religious verses Hanuman Chalisa.

Order: In front of personal residence of Uddhav Thackeray, CM. On April 22, hey reached Mumbai from personal residence. They declared that they would recite Hanuman Chalisa in Matoshree Bungalow of CM.

Order: the police officials approached the petitioners and informed that they should not indulge in any such acts and a notice under 149 was issued.

Order: Despite service of such notice both petitioners gave statements on visual media that because of their insistence there is an apprehension of a reaction in the society.

Order: As the acts of the petitioner an their statement has led to serious law and order situation, action be initiated against the petitioners.

Order: Merchant submitted that on this backdrop, an FIR was registered against the petitioners. After The registration of First FIR, the respondent proceeded to effect arrest of petitioners and on the very day at late hours of the day on April 23 second fir was registered.

Order: As the contents are read out by the counsel to further their submission, we may reproduce the same at a later part.

Order: the fir stated that when the petitioner resisted the arrest, a second fir came to be registered. Both firs are incidents of the same series of events.

Order: Merchant has submitted that first FIR is prequel and second FIR is sequel.
It is submission that registration of first fir is 17.23 hours. Taking further his submission that secind fir is part of series of second fir.

Order: As there was no registration of earlier fir, the respondent state authorities cannot arrest in second fir.

Order: Merchant submits second FiR is wholly untenable and unsustainable against the petitioner and is void ab initio.

Order: The SPP vehemently argues that the incidences in two FIRs are separate and are not part of same series. The first fir was of April 23 and the second fir was of April 24 17.23 hours.

Order: Merchant submits that though the petitioner made statements of a particular act, the petitioners did not commit that act, as there was a proposed visit of PM in Mumbai city.

Order: They had recalled their decision to recite. The statement in First FiR is that the declaration of petitioners of doing a particular act itself was itself a disturbance to law and order and there was threat to some reaction where the entire machinery would face repercussion

Order: SPP submitted that in FIR of 2022, that when police officers were repeatedly requesting the petitioners , the petitioners were not in the mood. The petitioners thereafter in a passionate manner refused to co-operate.

Order: If the petitioners are law abiding citizens then there was no prohibition against them to extend co-operation to police and avail legal remedies against the State.

Order: Mere perusal of contents show that the acts of the petitioner attract 353 of IPc. If the petitioners are having any reasons in defence, then they can take such a defence at approrpriate stage and not now.

Order: after considerign teh submissions made we fin find considerable merit in SPP submission.

Order: the declaration that they are reading religious verses in someone else’s house or even in public soace, then such an act is infringing public liberty of the other persons. The State is right to invoke the provisions apprehending law and order situation.

Order: petitioners who are active politically are expected to behave responsibly. Great power comes with great responsibility, The expectation of responsible conduct of those persons who have an active life, is a reasonable expectation.

Order: We come to the conclusion that the two incidences are separate and the present petition does not merit the court’s indulgence.

Order: Accordingly even though there cannot be dispute in prepositions of law, these judgements are of no help to the petition. The petition deserves to be dismissed.

Order: in case the state government is desirous of initiating any action against the State government then they shall issue 72 hours notice against the petitioner before taking such action.

#BombayHighCourt dismisses the petition filed by MP Navneet Rana and MLA Ravi Rana seeking quashing of FIR filed for alleged assault against police officer who came to arrest in incident of reciting Hanuman Chalisa outside CM Uddhav Thackeray’s house.

#HanumanChalisaRow

Order: we clarify that the Magistrate shall not be influenced by the observations made in the present order and shall hear the bail on its own merits.

[BREAKING] "With great power comes great responsibility:" Bombay High Court junks plea by Navneet Rana, Ravi Rana to quash assault FIR in Hanuman Chalisa row

report by @Neha_Jozie

#BombayHighCourt #NavneetRana #RaviRana #HanumanChalisaRow

barandbench.com/news/bombay-hi…