Disposed

Vikram Gurbir Singh and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC29 Oct 2021WP/1307/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR due to an alleged typographical error where Section 37(1) was cited instead of Section 37(3). The court accepted the Prosecuting Agency's statement admitting the error and granted liberty to the petitioners to pursue appropriate legal action after the required report is submitted.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed accepting APP's statement on instructions; liberty granted to petitioners to pursue appropriate action after report is submitted.

Vikram Gurbir Singh and Ors. Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

SMITA Digitally signed bySMITA JOHNSON JOHNSON GONSALVESDate: 2021.10.30 GONSALVES 15:19:36 +0530

908.wp1307-20.doc

1/3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶6

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.1307 OF 2020

¶8

Vikram Gurbir Singh And Ors. .. Petitioners v/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶9

Ms. Anandini Fernandes, for the Petitioners.

¶10

Mr. K.V. Saste, APP, for Respondent State.

¶11

Ms. Vidya Kadam, PI, Anti Corruption Bureau, Mumbai present in Court.

¶12

CORAM: NITIN JAMDAR & SARANG V. KOTWAL JJ.

¶13

DATE : 29 OCTOBER 2021.

¶14

P.C:-

¶15

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶16

This petition is filed for quashing of the Case No.324/PS/2020 pending before the learned Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at 5th Court, at Bhoiwada, Dadar Mumbai, arising out of Special LAC No.26 of 2020 which was registered by the Shivaji Police Station on 26 February 2020 against the Petitioners and co-accused for an offence under Sections 37(1) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

1 of 3

2/3

908.wp1307-20.doc

The case arose from an incident that took place on 26 February 2020, when certain persons gathered for holding a candle light vigil on a social issue. FIR was lodged under Section 37(1) and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act 1951. The FIR was lodged against 53 persons, which includes senior citizens and women. Out of 53, 16 have approached this Court with the present petition.

¶22

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that if the contents of the FIR are perused, it is quite clear that Section 37(1) of the Act of 1951 is not attracted at all and, at the most, it can be said that it is Section 37(3) that is attracted. The learned Counsel pointed out that as per Section 135(iii) of the Act, the penalty for offence under Section 37(3) is only of fine, which may extend to Rupees two thousand five hundred. The learned Counsel submitted that because of this error, which appears to be a typographical error, the Petitioners are severely prejudiced.

¶23

Section 37 (1) relates to the powers to prohibit certain acts for prevention of disorder for carrying of arms, cudgels, swords, spears bludgeons, guns, knives, sticks or lathis, corrosive substance or explosives, collection and preparation of stones or other missiles or instruments or means of casting or impelling missiles, exhibition of persons or corpses or figures or effigies and such other activities as specified from clauses (a) to (f). Section 37(3) is the power of the authority to prohibit any assembly or procession whenever and for so

¶24

2 of 3

¶25

3/3 908.wp1307-20.doc

¶26

¶27

long as it considers such prohibition to be necessary for the preservation of the public order. Since the perusal of the FIR indicated that the ingredients of Section 37(3) seems to be attracted, on query to the APP as to the stand of the Prosecuting Agency, the learned APP, upon instructions from Ms. Vidya Kadam, PI, Anti Corruption Bureau, Mumbai, stated that mention of Section 37(1) of the Act of 1951 in the FIR, which error has also occurred elsewhere in the proceedings, is a typing error, and it should have been Section 37(3). The learned APP also submitted on instructions that necessary report will be submitted to the concerned Court, in that regard, the next date assigned to the case, which we are informed, is on 17 December 2021. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that this statement will suffice the purpose of the Petitioners, and the Petitioners may be permitted to take necessary steps as per law after submission of the report.

¶28

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of accepting the statement made by learned APP, on instructions, and granting liberty to the Petitioners to pursue the appropriate course of action after the report is so submitted.

¶29

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶30

(NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

¶31

3 of 3

Vikram Gurbir Singh and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram Gurbir Singh and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prashant Govind Shewale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Abhishek Sureshkumar Singh @ Harsh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pravin Sheshdhar Mishra Vs the State of Maharashtra

Altaf Imam Husain Bagwan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Atul Vilas Gaonkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anil Vasantrao Deshmukh Vs Directorate of Enforcement and Anr.