Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 6723

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 559 OF 2024

Gobindram Daryanumal Talreja & Ors. .. Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

....................

• Ms. Meenal Chandnani, Advocate for Applicants

• Mr. Gobindram D. Talreja - Applicant No. 1, Haresh Sobhraj Motwani - Applicant No. 2 & Mr. Prateek Naishadh Sanghvi - Applicant No. 3 present

• Ms. Manisha Tidke, APP for Respondent - State

• Mr. Mangesh H. Sant, PSI, Vakola Police Station

...................

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

DATE : NOVEMBER 21, 2024

Advocates:
Ms. Meenal Chandnani, Advocate for Applicants; Ms. Manisha Tidke, APP for Respondent - State

The court ruled that mere questioning of identity does not constitute obstruction under Section 353 IPC, and the prosecution failed to establish any assault or criminal force against the applicants.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 353 r/w 34 - Criminal Revision Application challenging rejection of discharge application in a case of alleged obstruction of CBI officers during a search operation - No charge framed in 17 years; allegations of assault and obstruction not substantiated - Applicants, being legal advisors, acted within their rights to assist their client - Court found no prima facie evidence of obstruction or assault, leading to quashing of the FIR and allowing discharge. (Paras 11, 12, 14, 16, 17)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 258 - The court has the discretion to stop proceedings if the case lacks sufficient evidence to proceed - The impugned order lacked consideration of the essential parameters of Section 353 IPC and failed to appreciate the absence of evidence supporting the charges against the applicants. (Paras 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
The applicants were accused of obstructing CBI officials during a search at their client’s office, where they arrived on request to provide legal assistance. The complaint alleged they refused to leave the premises and obstructed the search, leading to their arrest. (Paras 3.1-3.6)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish any assault or obstruction as defined under Section 353 IPC, emphasizing the necessity of lawful duty for the application of the section. The applicants' presence was justified as they were acting in their professional capacity. (Paras 8.1, 10, 12)

Issues: The main issues were whether the applicants committed an offence under Section 353 IPC and if the evidence presented was sufficient to support the charges. (Paras 10, 12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mere questioning of identity by the applicants did not amount to obstruction, and the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to prove any assault or criminal force. The legal profession's unique nature was recognized, emphasizing the role of advocates in upholding the law. (Paras 8.1, 10, 12)

Result: The application for discharge was allowed, and the FIR was quashed, with costs awarded to the applicants. (Paras 14, 17)

JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Revision Application challenges the rejection order dated 25.06.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court Room No. 21, Mumbai in Discharge Application filed below Exh. 13 in Sessions Case No. 379 of 2019 filed by Applicants.

2. Applicants have been arraigned as accused Nos. 1 to 3 respectively in connection with FIR bearing CR No. 548 of 2007 registered with Vakola Police Station on 03.11.2004 for offences under Section 353 r/w 34 of IPC at the instance of Police Inspector, ACB, CBI Mr. Bhalchandra Moreshwar Chonkar. No charge has been framed in the last 17 years. Applicants filed Application for discharge dated 10.10.2022 below Exh. 13 which stands rejected by the impugned order. Applicant No. 1 - Gobindram Daryanomal Talreja is 76 years old, Applicant No. 2 - Haresh Sobhraj Motwani is 72 years old and Applicant No. 3 - Prateek Naishadh Sanghvi is 38 years old as on date. Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are Advocates by profession and Applicant No. 3 was a law intern undergoing his internship with Applicant No. 1 at the time of incident. He is a practicing Advocate at the Bar today.

3. Briefly stated are the facts of the present case required for consideration are as follows:-

3.1. On 03.11.2007 Applicant No. 1 received a mobile phone call from Ms. Sonal Chitroda CMD of All Services under 1 Roof Pvt Ltd, his client Company at about 8:00 a.m. in the morning informing him that CBI Officers have visited their office premises situated at Unit No. 7, Shantinagar Co-op. Industrial Estate, Plot No. 4-B, Vakola, Santacruz (E), Mumbai - 400 055 at 07:15 a.m. and were conducting search at the said office premises. Hence, she requested him to visit her office. Because of his Court Schedule, Applicant No. 1 expressed his inability to visit the office on that day in the morning as he was required to attend the Labour Court for conducting some other case there. Applicant No. 1 however informed her that since CBI Officers had shown her the search warrant issued by Court, she and her staff would have to co-operate with them in the search. He informed her that he would visit the office immediately after his Court commitments for the day were over.

3.2. At about 4:45 p.m. he received another mobile phone call from Ms. Sonal Chitroda informing him that the search at her office was still being carried on since 7:15 a.m. in the morning and one of the CBI Officer behaved very rudely and even assaulted one of her staff member and the CBI Officers were pressuring her staff to sign certain papers against their wishes. Hence expressing her anxiety, fear and apprehending harm at the hands of the CBI Officers, she requested Applicant No. 1 to immediately rush to her office to rescue the situation.

3.3. Applicant No. 1 being busy at that time in Court informed one of his Associate Advocate i.e. Applicant No. 2 who was before the learned Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate's 9th Court at Bandra at that time to accompany him to visit the office premises of his client at Vakola where the CBI raid was underway. Applicant No. 1 also took along Applicant No. 3 who was then a law student and engaged as intern by Applicant No. 1's Law Firm.

3.4. At about 5:00 p.m., Applicants reached the office premises at Vakola and met Ms. Sonal Chitroda in her cabin and as she was informing them about the search operation in her office, one of the CBI Officer Mr. Indrajeet Bisht, Police Inspector came there and questioned Applicant Nos. 1 to 3 as to how did they enter the office premises without permission when search was undertaken by the CBI. Applicant No. 1 informed him that he was an Advocate by profession and at the request made by his client Ms. Sonal Chitroda, he had come there to render assistance to her since the search which began at 7:15 a.m. in the morning was continuing for a long time. At this juncture Mr. Indrajeet Bisht called Mr. Bhalchandra Moreshwar Chonkar, PI, ACB, CBI who demanded to see the identity cards of the Applicants. Id

Click Here to Read the rest of this document