The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the FIR registered against the petitioner.
The Court observed that in order to constitute an offence punishable under Section 186 of the IPC, it is for the public servant who has been obstructed in the discharge of his public functions to voluntarily come forward and allege the obstruction.
Brief Facts:
An alleged obstruction has been caused to a public servant by the name of Smt. Ashwini Bhide, a Member of the Indian Administrative Service, who was, at the relevant time, working as Managing Director of Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation, which corporation was then engaged in the construction of a car shed in the land belonging to Aarey Dairy and this work
envisaged cutting of several trees. The allegation is that certain messages were received on the official cell phone of Smt. Ashwini Bhide due to which she felt offended and obstructed in the discharge of her official functions and when she blocked the number from which she had received those messages, Smt. Ashwini Bhide received some messages from a different mobile number.
There was nothing on record to show that Smt. Ashwini Bhide had written to respondent no.2 and informed him about the alleged obstruction being caused to her by the person sending messages to her from a certain mobile number, which is alleged to be belonging to the petitioner. No efforts to find out the source of information of respondent no.2 regarding the commission of this cognizable offence were made by the Investigating Officer.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that the allegations made in the FIR, when taken at their face value, do not, in any manner, constitute the offence punishable under Section 186 of the IPC. These allegations, when accepted as they are, also do not indicate the commission of any offence as is contemplated under Sections 43(f) and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The Court remarked that in order to constitute an offence punishable under Section 186 of the IPC, it is necessary that there must be a public servant who is voluntarily obstructed by another in the discharge of his public functions and such obstruction must have a direct connection with the discharge of public functions of such a public servant. This offence would also indicate that it is for the public servant who has been obstructed in the discharge of his public functions to voluntarily come forward and allege the obstruction.
The Court noted the fact that no efforts to find out the source of information of respondent no.2 regarding the commission of this cognizable offence were made by the Investigating Officer and, therefore, it is still not known as to whether or not there was any such information available as was sufficient to disclose the commission of a cognizable offence so necessary for the registration of the FIR in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The Court also observed that it is clear from the messages that the sender of those messages, who is stated to be the present petitioner, had acted in a bona fide manner, on the basis of what he believed to be an act that was necessary for maintaining the health of the city of Mumbai. His intention appears to be to protect the forest he considers himself to be acting like a pair of lungs for the city of Mumbai. These messages do not contain any offensive material or obscenities. Rather, they appear to have been sent in the assertion of a democratic right of a citizen of this country to put forth his viewpoint, to object, to protest, to persuade, to urge, and so on.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, allowing the petition, held that the FIR against the petitioner is quashed and set aside.
Case Title: Avijit Michael vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Hon’ble Justice R. N. Laddha
Case no.: CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4181 OF 2018
Advocate for the Petitioner: Ms. Gayatri Singh
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. K.V. Saste and Mr. Vijay Ghodia
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
