Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Lawyer For Shouting "Pannas Khoke Ekdum Okay" Against Shiv Sena (Shinde) Leader
The Bombay High Court recently quashed a First Information Report (FIR) against a lawyer, who along with a few farmers, staged an agitation in front of the convoy of Abdul Sattar, the Minister of Agriculture, who had joined the Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde) group, by raising slogans like "Pannas Khoke, Ekdum Okay" (Fifty Crores All Okay).Notably, this slogan has been used for Chief Minister...
The Bombay High Court recently quashed a First Information Report (FIR) against a lawyer, who along with a few farmers, staged an agitation in front of the convoy of Abdul Sattar, the Minister of Agriculture, who had joined the Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde) group, by raising slogans like "Pannas Khoke, Ekdum Okay" (Fifty Crores All Okay).
Notably, this slogan has been used for Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, who along with 40 MLAs of the original Shiv Sena, rebelled and joined the coalition of the BJP, Shiv Sena (Shinde) and NCP. The Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) has since then being criticising the Shinde Faction of compromising with the party's ideology by accepting Rs 50 crore each.
A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Santosh Chapalgaonkar noted that the petitioner Sharad Mali along with few farmers, halted Sattar's convoy on March 22, 2023 at Amalner. The judges noted that the protestors staged an agitation and threw cotton and empty cartons (boxes) in front of Sattar's convoy.
The bench emphasised that every citizen has the right to protest/agitate.
"The important point to be noted is that, every citizen has a right to agitate. Of course, this right is not the unfettered right but some times, when there are expectations from the Government, then, obvious reactions would be there," the bench said in its October 16 order.
When it is said that cotton was thrown it is stated that petitioner, alongwith other farmers, was agitating in respect of price offered. There could not have been then an intention or common object, the judges noted. This was in context that the police had invoked "unlawful assembly" charge against the protestors.
The bench further said that the incident cannot attract the offence of wrongfully restraining the minister.
"It is not stated in the FIR that though the convoy was stopped, then the Minister had heard the representatives of the persons agitating there and therefore, it could not be said that there was any wrongful restraint," the judges opined.
Further the bench noted that the authorities had in fact issued prohibitory orders in the area to maintain public peace.
"Though prohibitory orders were issued to maintain public peace, but every agitation can not be taken as disturbing the public peace," the judges underscored.
With these observations, the bench quashed the FIR.
Appearance:
Advocate Bhushan Mahajan appeared for the Petitioner.
Additional Public Prosecutor AR Kale represented the State.
Case Title: Sharad Mali vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition 589 of 2023)