Bombay High Court Questions Multiple FIRs Against NCP’s Anand Paranjape For Slogans And Comments Against CM Eknath Shinde

A division bench comprising Justices Revati Mohita Dere and Prithviraj Chavan questioned the prosecution on the multiplicity of litigation and asked the state’s counsel to see if all FIRs, barring one case be closed. The court noted that identical sections were applied in the FIRs.

The court further remarked that police officers don’t learn till costs are imposed on them and then recovered from their salaries. "It has to be one singular complaint since they are identical. All are the same. Either you close (cases) from all other police stations and keep it at one,” his counsel said.

The case has its genesis in a protest by NCP workers led by Paranjape in Thane after the state party president MLA Jayant Patil was suspended and barred from attending the winter session of the house. The initial case against Paranjpe was based on a tweet he had posted.

According to Paranjpe, the supporters of CM Shinde’s faction registered 10 identical FIRs with different police stations in and around Thane. The accused were booked with offences punishable under sections 153 (Wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot), 501 (Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory.) and 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) of IPC and provisions of Maharashtra Police Act.

During the hearing, Paranjape claimed that 11 FIRs were filed from a single cause of action. It was a political agitation, he said, and added that multiple FIRs for the same cause of action couldn’t survive. Significantly he sought for the 10 FIRs to be quashed.

The state counsel sought time to take instruction on the petition from the respective officers.

This prompted Advocates Suhas Oak and Vinod Utekar to seek an order for no-coercive action till the next date of hearing. However, the government pleader said he was free to approach the appropriate bench for bail in each case.

The court took strong exception to this and adjourned the matte to January 18, 2023. "Does this even constitute an offence? This has to stop. Ultimately who suffers is a common man. In another matter, you took the accused into custody, where absolutely no offence was made out. Will they (police) learn only if there should be costs on police officers which should be recovered from their salaries?"