FIR For Obstructing Public Servant Against Param Bir's Alleged Aide Jeetendra Navlani Quashed By Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR against one Jeetendra Navlani who was alleged to be connected to the former Mumbai Police Commissioner Param Bir Singh by the investigating officer of the case, Anup Dange. Navlani, who is a developer and owner of a restaurant & bar in South Mumbai, was booked under Section 186 IPC for causing obstruction to a public servant from...
The Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR against one Jeetendra Navlani who was alleged to be connected to the former Mumbai Police Commissioner Param Bir Singh by the investigating officer of the case, Anup Dange. Navlani, who is a developer and owner of a restaurant & bar in South Mumbai, was booked under Section 186 IPC for causing obstruction to a public servant from performing his duty in November 2019.
A division bench of Justice PB Varale and SM Modak, while pronouncing the order in Navlani's favour on Tuesday, said, "For the reasons and in view of observations made, the present case is fit for exercising powers of this court, petition allowed in terms of prayer seeking to quash and set aside FIR." A detailed judgment is yet to be made available.
The FIR was registered against Navlani after a police team, on November 22, 2019, allegedly found that Navlani had kept the restaurant & bar, 'Dirty Buns Sobo', open beyond permissible timings. Police Inspector Anup Dange had alleged that Navlani refused to shut the outlet claiming good connections with then State Anti-Corruption Bureau Chief Param Bir Singh.
A fight broke out in the elevator of the outlet and a few people allegedly assaulted a police constable when tried to intervene in the fight. According to Dange, Navlani stopped him from arresting the three people involved in this brawl, therefore obstructed from performing his duty.
Appearing for Navlani before the High Court, Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda had earlier argued that the CCTV footage of the incident was sufficient to exonerate Navlani; that he was falsely implicated under section 353 of the IPC; and that imaginary allegations were levelled against him.
Ponda told the court that Navlani was not quarrelling with Dange or obstructing any of the police team from performing or discharging their official duties and he was only talking to concerned official. Chief Public prosecutor Aruna Pai opposed the plea.
In the FIR, Dange had also alleged that after the police team returned to the police station with those three accused, he started getting calls from several police officers. The complaint further alleged that Dange came to know that Yash Mehta, one of the three accused, was the grandson of diamond merchant and film producer Bharat Shah. A charge sheet was filed in the case in May 2021.
Navlani, along with Singh, is also being probed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau on a complaint by the same police officer, Anup Dange. In this case Dange has alleged that Singh, after becoming Mumbai Police Commissioner, had suspended him because he had refused to agree to Singh's demand of not naming Navlani in the FIR in 2019. Dange had also alleged that Singh later demanded Rs 2 crore to revoke his suspension.
Case Title: Jeetendra Navlani v. The State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 132