Bombay High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC Against MLA Accused of Illegal Construction and Inciting Communal Disharmony

Political Rivalry or Criminal Conduct? Bombay HC Rejects MLA’s Plea to Quash FIR

In a significant ruling, the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has refused to quash a First Information Report (FIR) filed against a sitting Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) from Dhule. The case, which involves allegations ranging from inciting communal hatred to unauthorized public construction, highlights the court's strict stance on the use of judicial remedies during ongoing criminal investigations.

The Backdrop of the Dispute

The applicant, MLA Farukh Shah, sought to quash an FIR (Crime No. 167 of 2023) registered at the Chalisgaon Road Police Station. The charges filed against him include Sections 153-A (promoting enmity between groups), 295-A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings), and 124(A) (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code, alongside violations of the Maharashtra Prevention of Defacement of Property Act.

The dispute stems from the construction of a raised platform named ‘Tipu Sultan Chowk’ without official sanction. The complainant, a social worker, alleged that the act exacerbated communal tensions, while further accusations surfaced regarding derogatory comments allegedly posted by the MLA on social media platforms about historical figures.

Arguments from the Bench and Bar

The applicant argued that the entire case was a byproduct of political rivalry and that naming a square after a historical warrior like Tipu Sultan did not constitute a criminal offense. Counsel for the MLA further attempted to introduce a "supplementary statement" as evidence of malafide intent by the complainant.

Conversely, the State’s counsel and the respondent’s lawyer mounted a strong defense. They presented evidence that unauthorized construction had indeed taken place and pointed to inflammatory social media activity. Most notably, the Court expressed deep concern regarding how the applicant obtained a "supplementary statement" which the police maintained was never provided to him, leading to concerns over the improper procurement of confidential prosecution documents.

Uncovering the Procedural Misstep

The High Court directed sharp criticism toward the applicant’s conduct during the proceedings. Upon inquiry, police officials confirmed that no such supplementary statement of the informant had been officially released. The Court emphasized that an advocate must ensure the integrity of the evidence presented before the bench, noting that "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."

Key Observations

• On the limits of Section 482: "When the investigation is still going on and from the report of the police it appears that there is some evidence... 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."
• On the conduct of the legal counsel: "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."
• On the naming of public spaces: "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."

Final Decision: The Rule of Law Prevails

The Bench, comprising Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay A. Deshmukh, JJ., concluded that the investigation into the unauthorized construction and the nature of the MLA’s social media activity requires completion. By rejecting the application, the Court has reinforced that political status does not exempt an individual from adhering to municipal bylaws or bypass the sanctity of the criminal investigative process.

The ruling serves as a stern reminder that the judiciary will not entertain petitions for quashing when investigations are active and when there are questions regarding the procedural legitimacy of evidence submitted by the petitioner. The investigation into the incident will continue unimpeded.