CASE NAME:
Raj Thackeray vs State of Maharashtra
CASE DATE:
18th April, 2024
PARTIES:
Petitioner: Raj Shrikant Thackeray
Respondent: State of Maharashtra
BENCH/JUDGE:
Justice Nitin B Suryawanshi
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
1. Article 227 of the Constitution of India:
Provides for the jurisdiction of High Courts to exercise superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction.
2. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
Empowers the High Court to exercise inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.
3. Section 143 IPC:
Defines unlawful assembly as a group of five or more people with a common unlawful purpose. Punishes participants with imprisonment up to six months, a fine, or both.
4. Section 427 IPC:
Deals with causing damage exceeding fifty rupees. Punishes offenders with imprisonment up to two years, a fine, or both.
SUBJECT:-
The petitioner, a political leader, challenged court orders in a criminal case alleging damage to public property. Despite the accusation, the petitioner argued absence and lack of evidence. The court granted relief, quashing orders and ceasing legal proceedings, suggesting procedural issues rather than conclusive innocence.
OVERVIEW
The sequence of events unfolded with an incident on October 21, 2008, where individuals, including Maharashtra Navnirman Sena party workers, allegedly attacked a State Transport bus in Sonari Karmala, damaging its front window and causing a financial loss. This led to the registration of a criminal case against the accused, including the petitioner, a leader of the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena. The petitioner’s attempt to secure discharge through Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code was unsuccessful, resulting in the dismissal of the application by the Magistrate on May 12, 2023. Following this, the petitioner’s appeal was also denied by the Additional Sessions Judge in Paranda. Dissatisfied with the rulings, the petitioner subsequently filed a petition invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, alongside Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, challenging the orders issued on May 12, 2023, and November 4, 2023.
ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE COURT
- Whether the petitioner’s absence from the scene of the offense on October 21, 2008, exonerated him from culpability?
- Whether the allegations of abetment against the petitioner, despite his absence, hold ground based on name invocation and party affiliation?
- Are the precedent cases cited by both parties, addressing similar allegations of abetment and lack of evidence, applicable to the present case and support the petitioner’s defence?
CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
- The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Rajendra Shirodkar asserted that he was not present at the location where the offense occurred on October 21, 2008. He provided evidence of his arrest by the Kherwadi Police Station in Mumbai in connection with a separate case on the same day, establishing his physical absence from the scene.
- He contended that the prosecution failed to provide any material showing his direct involvement in inciting the attack on the S.T. bus through provocative speech or actions. Thus, there was no concrete evidence linking him to the offense of abetment.
- He also relied on previous court rulings that dismissed similar allegations of abetment against individuals based on insufficient evidence. He contended that these precedents supported his defense and demonstrated a consistent judicial approach to cases of this nature.
CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
- The respondent, Mr SR Wakle argued that even though the petitioner was not physically present at the scene of the offense, his name was invoked during the attack on the S.T. bus, implying his involvement in instigating the crime through his party affiliation and leadership role.
- The respondent contended that the actions of the petitioner’s party workers, combined with the invocation of his name during the incident, constituted sufficient grounds to infer his abetment in the offense, despite his physical absence.
- The respondent attempted to distinguish the legal precedents cited by the petitioner, arguing that the circumstances of those cases were different from the present situation. They sought to demonstrate that the evidence and context of the current case warranted a different legal interpretation.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- The court noted the absence of any material on record indicating instigation by the petitioner in the present crime.
- The court observed that both the Trial Court and Sessions Court failed to appreciate this crucial aspect, namely the absence of evidence of instigation by the petitioner.
- As a result of these errors, the court concluded that the impugned orders were unsustainable in both legal principles and the factual context of the case.
JUDGMENT
The court allowed the writ petition. It quashed and set aside the impugned orders dated 04.11.2023 and 12.05.2023, issued by the Additional Sessions Judge, Paranda, and the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Paranda, respectively, in connection with Criminal Revision Application No. 35/2023 and Regular Criminal Case No. 11/2009. Additionally, the court quashed and set aside the proceedings of Regular Criminal Case No. 11/2009 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad, to the extent of the petitioner.
CONCLUSION
Upon reviewing the case, it is apparent that the petitioner, a political leader within a political party, sought relief from charges relating to the damage of public property. While the petitioner argued for their innocence, claiming absence from the scene of the offense and lack of evidence linking them to the crime, the court’s decision to grant relief may indicate procedural rather than substantive considerations. The court’s ruling to quash the lower court's orders and cease legal proceedings against the petitioner might stem from procedural irregularities or insufficient evidence rather than a definitive exoneration. Therefore, while the petitioner benefits from the court’s decision, it does not conclusively establish their innocence but rather signifies a procedural outcome.
