Hanuman Chalisa Row - 'Persons In Public Life Expected To Act Responsibly' : Bombay High Court Dismisses MP-MLA Duo's Plea To Quash FIR
The Bombay High Court on Monday dismissed a petition filed independent MLA from Amravati Ravi Rana and his wife MP Navneet Rana for quashing a second FIR against them for resisting their arrest over the row to recite the Hanuman Chalisa outside Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray's family home.A bench comprising Justices PB Varale and SM Modak observed in the order as follows :"We find...
The Bombay High Court on Monday dismissed a petition filed independent MLA from Amravati Ravi Rana and his wife MP Navneet Rana for quashing a second FIR against them for resisting their arrest over the row to recite the Hanuman Chalisa outside Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray's family home.
A bench comprising Justices PB Varale and SM Modak observed in the order as follows :
"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 versus 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.
Persons in public life are expected to act responsibly. With great power comes with great responsibility. That shose who are active in public life are expected to act responsibly is not an extra but basic am expectation".
In case state government is desirous of initiating any action in pursuant to the second FIR, the officers of state government shall issue 72 hours notice to petitioners before taking such action, the bench added. It further said that the observations made in the present petition should not influence the bail hearing.
On Saturday, the Khar police booked the Ranas under IPC Sections 153 (A) (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race etc), and 124A (sedition), besides provisions of the Bombay Police Act. A second FIR was filed against the Ranas on Sunday under IPC Section 353 for alleged assault of a public servant to prevent him/her from doing official duty.
Advocate Rizwan Merchant, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the second FIR was an abuse of process and the subsequent addition of the offence of sedition was unsustainable.
Special Public Prosecutor Pradip Gharat submitted that the second FIR was registered for a separate offence relating to the obstruction of police from discharging their duty.
The SPP submitted that first FIR was registered at 5.23 on April 23 while the second FIR was registered at 2am on April 24. SPP submitted that when the police officials were repeatedly requesting the petitioners, they were not in a mood to listen. Instead, they flatly refused to co-operate with police officials. The police had served them advance notice that they should not indulge in the proposed acts. Despite such notice the petitioners gave interviews in visual media, and because of the insistence of the petitioners there was an apprehension of a reaction in society. As the acts of the petitioners and the statements are resulting in a serious threat to the law and order situation , action was initiated against the petitioners, the SPP added.
Case Title: Navneet Ravi Rana and Anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 159
Click Here To Read/Download Order