'His speech did not give specific direction to damage public property'; Bombay HC quashes 2008 Beed stone pelting case against Raj Shrikant Thackeray

Bombay High Court: In the present case, an application was filed for quashing the proceedings in a case pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Parali Vaijinath, Beed arising out of FIR registered with Police Station, Parali Vaijinath (Rural), Beed for the offence punishable under Sections 143 ¹, 427 ², 336 ³, and 109 ⁴ of the Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984 and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.

The Division Bench of Vibha Kankanwadi* and Sanjay A. Deshmukh, JJ., opined that actual mischief or damage to the public property by pelting stones could not be based on abetment, because the applicant in his speech, could not have given a specific direction to the party workers/followers that they should go and cause damage to public property. The Court opined that it would be an abuse of process of law if the applicant had to face the trial as the charge sheet also did not mention that any statement was ever made by the applicant to provoke its party workers. Thus, the Court quashed and set aside the proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Parali Vaijinath, Beed.

Background

The applicant, Raj Shrikant Thackeray, was the President of political party, Maharashtra Navnirman Sena. Respondent 2-informant was the driver of a bus and stated that on 22-10-2008, around 10:20 a.m., when the said bus was on the root of Parali—Gangakhed and reached T-Junction of Dharmapuri, then an Indica car came in front of bus. Thereafter, five to six people alighted from the car and pelted stones on the front glass of the bus, shouted slogans “राज ठाकरे जिंदाबाद” and fled away after damaging the bus. It was stated that the said act of pelting stones was the result of provocative speech by the applicant or at the instigation by the applicant.

Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had filed application for discharge before the Magistrate, however, that was rejected on 10-10-2017 and the said could not be challenged before the Sessions Court by way of revision, as there was miscommunication between him and his Advocate. It was stated that this Court could exercise its powers under Section 482 ⁵ of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), as there was no evidence on record against the applicant which would show that the applicant instigated the accused persons, who pelted stones and caused damage to the public property. Therefore, it would be unjust for the applicant to face the trial. Whereas the respondents stated that the present application was filed at a very belated stage when the applicant had exhausted his remedy and had not challenged the order on discharge application.

Analysis, Law, and Decision

The Court accepted the fact that there was delay on the applicant’s part to approach this Court, however, it opined that the said fact could not be the only ground on which this Court should not exercise its powers under Section 482 of CrPC.

The Court took note of the entire charge sheet and observed that the applicant was not a member of an unlawful assembly and had not pelted stones on the bus causing mischief or damage to public property. The Court stated that in its earlier orders, it noted that the applicant was made an accused as it was alleged that he made a speech somewhere and because of the said speech, co-accused persons-his party workers/followers got excited and pelted stones.

The Court opined that actual mischief or damage to public property could not be based on abetment, because in the speech there could not have been a specific direction to the party workers/followers that they should go and cause damage to public property.

The Court opined that it would be an abuse of process of law if the applicant had to face the trial as the charge sheet also did not mention that any such statement was ever made by the applicant. Thus, the Court allowed the present application, quashed, and set aside the proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Parali Vaijinath, Beed.

[Raj Shrikant Thackeray v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 729, decided on 21-3-2025]

*Judgment authored by: Justice Vibha Kankanwadi

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Applicant: Rajendra A. Shirodkar, Senior Advocate i/b A. S. Shejwal, Advocate for the applicant.

For the Respondents: G. A. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent 1/State; N. B. Narwade, Advocate for Respondent 2 (Appointed).