HC refuses to quash FIR against Ranas

Mumbai: Advising them to “behave responsibly” and maintaining that “great power comes with great responsibility”, the Bombay High Court refused to quash an FIR for alleged assault of a servant while resisting their threat to recite “Hanuman Chalisa” in front of Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray’s Bandra residence.

Hearing a petition filed by the Rana couple seeking to quash the second of the two FIRs filed under section 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) of the IPC, a HC bench of Justices PB Varale and SM Modak refused to entertain the petition on the ground that the two incidents (one leading to the case of sedition and other of assault) were separate and the petition seeking to quash the second FIR deserved to be rejected.   

Alluding to the submissions made by Special Public Prosecutor Pradip Gharat with regard to the first FIR relating to threats handed out by Rana couple that they would recite “Hanuman Chalisa” in front of Maharashtra chief minister Uddhav Thackeray’s Bandra residence, the HC bench observed: "We find considerable merit in the submission of the Special Public Prosecutor. He was justified in making reference to the FIR, to the declaration of reciting religious versus in the personal residence of the Chief Minister”

“Such a declaration that a person would recite such religious verses at the residence of another person's place or at a public place is a breach of the personal liberty of the other person. The state government is justified in the apprehension that it could create a law and order problem,” the HC bench noted.

"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," the HC bench noted in its order. 

Referring to the observations made by the court in another case that differences in ideologies and political convictions should not come in the way of cordial relationship between political opponents, fell on deaf ears.

"Just two days back, we made observations that even if they are representatives of the people, they have to behave properly with the opposition members as well. 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 fell on deaf ears," the HC bench lamented.

However, the HC bench clarified that the Magistrate shall not be influenced by the observations made in its order rejecting the petition seeking quashing of the second FIR (over alleged assault of a servant while resisting their threat to recite “Hanuman Chalisa” in front of Maharashtra chief minister’s private residence “Matoshri” at Bandra in north-west Mumbai) and shall hear the bail plea of the petitioners on its own



merits.

The Rana couple were arrested on Sunday evening for offences registered initially against them under sections 153A (causing enmity between different groups), 34 (common intention) and later under section 124A (sedition) of IPC for  challenging the Government machinery and making remarks against Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray.

They were also booked under provisions of the Bombay Police Act for causing law and order situation in the city.

Navneet and Ravi Rana were later on Sunday evening remanded by a holiday court  in Judicial custody for 14 days. The Rana couple subsequently moved the city court seeking bail and the court scheduled the hearing of the case for April 29.

The second FIR was subsequently registered against them under Section 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) of the IPC. The Rana couple had moved the court seeking to quash the second FIR alleging that it was meant to harass the petitioners and deny them bail.

In their petition seeking the quashing of the second FIR, Ranas had alleged that the second FIR was an act of political vendetta and it was meant to harass the petitioners and deny them bail. 

The petitioners told the HC bench that they were already under arrest at the relevant time when the alleged offence is said to have taken place. "The second FIR is a strategic and tactical FIR with the sole purpose of pressurising the Ranas as a result of a vengeful political vendetta," the plea said.

The petitioners’s counsel told the court "The first FIR is of 4 am in the morning. During the first remand, there was a statement made that Section 124A (sedition) was added. If you can add 124A then you could have added Section 353 (assault on public servant). The second FIR was registered to ensure that the couple remain in jail, This FIR cannot be allowed to be 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 other places like Pune, Osmanabad and Amravati".

On his part, Special Public Prosecutor Pradeep Gharat said that the second FIR arose from a distinct offence and it was a consequence of  their refusal to co-operate with the police. He said that the petitioners had an argument with the police and they said that the police could not arrest them."At this juncture we see the facts and that the ingredients show a prima facie offence. If there is a false case, then the complainant will be liable. I am saying these are two distinct FIRs," he said.

Responding to a query by the HC bench as why the sectionb 124A to the first FIR, Gharat told the court:"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".