The Bombay High Court has refused to quash the FIR against Ex-MLA and AIMIM Leader Farukh Shah accused of illegally constructing Tipu Sultan Chowk without permission, and rebuked his Advocate for producing a document without verifying its source, on mere instruction.

The Court was considering an Application seeking quashing of an FIR registered for the offence punishable under Sections 153-A, 295-A, 504, 505 (1), 506, 124(A), 120-B, 404 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 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 observed,"...A public square (chowk), road or place cannot be named by the M.L.A. on his own. There is a procedure under the Maharashtra Municipalities Act as well as Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, wherein the proposal is required to be tabled before the concerned authority i.e. the general body meeting of the elected members and then after the consensus, such place would be named accordingly. Now the applicant at one place, i.e. in Ground No. (VIII) of the Application, is supporting the act of naming the square in the name of Tipu Sultan and in Ground No. (IX) he is claiming innocence. Both these acts cannot go together. When the investigation is still going on and from the report of the police it appears that there is some evidence, whether it is connected with the applicant or not would be a different question, but in the said circumstances it cannot be said that this is a fit case where we should exercise our powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."

The Applicant was represented by Advocate S.S. Kazi, while the Respondent was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor A.R. Kale.

Facts of the Case

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the FIR was filed with mala fide intention under the influence of a political rival. It was alleged by the informant that with the construction of the chowk, the Applicant created hatred amongst two communities.

The Counsel went on to argue that the Respondent No.2 was trying to settle political scores as he is from a rival political group. He further argued that there is no question of offence under Section 153-A, 295-A, 504, 505(1), 506 of the Indian Penal Code getting involved in the matter as Tipu Sultan was the freedom fighter of India and great warrior and therefore, giving name of the said person cannot attract any criminal prosecution.

The Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that there appears to be some evidence to show that there was a construction made in the chowk which was demolished and the applicant had not taken any efforts to see that illegal construction is not made. He further submitted that there is also some evidence to show that the accused has made abusive comments on his social media Facebook account and Instagram against Shri Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj.

Reasoning By Court

The Court, at the outset, took note of the fact that an inquiry has been ordered into how the Petitioner obtained a copy of the supplementary statement.

"...We afraid for the reason that the said document has been endorsed as true copy and unless the learned Advocate himself has not seen the copy or has not taken instructions regarding the source of that document from where his client has fetched that, he ought not to have endorsed it as true copy. When we pointed out this fact and asked the learned Advocate for the applicant about the same, he has tendered apology....", the Court observed.

It stressed that when the Police Officers disclose that there is no such document in existence, nor was it given to anybody, the question would still be, as to how either the informant or the Petitioner got such a document.

"It is absolutely not proper on the part of a party to produce a document by obtaining the custody of such document in otherwise manner. It is the bounden duty of the Advocate representing such party to consider whether the said document has come to his client by legal means or not. Merely because his client is asking him to produce, the Advocate should not run the risk of producing such document before any Court of law where he cannot explain the source from which the client has fetched the document," the Court observed.

The Court refused to quash the FIR in view of the fact that there exists prima facie evidence and investigation is going on.

The Petition was accordingly rejected.

Cause Title: Farukh Shah vs. The State of Maharashtra (2025:BHC-AUG:16020-DB)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate S.S. Kazi,

Respondent- Additional Public Prosecutor A.R. Kale, Advocate Chetan B. Chaudhari

Click here to read/ download Order









Bombay High CourtJustice Vibha KankanwadiJustice Sanjay A. Deshmukh

Sheetal Joon