Allowed

Tirthankar Suvankar Ganguly and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Jul 2023WP/1115/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners seeking quashing of charge-sheet for drone flight violations. Court found permission granted despite issuing order under Cr.P.C. s. 144. Held permission was not explicit regarding restrictions and prohibitory order lacked proper publication under s. 163 Police Act. Writ allowed.

What did the court decide?

Quashed charge-sheet CC No.1572/PS/2022 pending before Metropolitan Magistrate’s 40th Court for offences punishable under section 37 r/w 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

Tirthankar Suvankar Ganguly and Anr. Vs the State… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

wp 1115.23.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1115 OF 2023

¶4

Mr Tirthankar Suvankar Ganguly
Aged about 43 years, Occ: Service,
Office at 101, Kalpatru Synergy,
Opp. Grand Hyatt,
Santacruz (East),
Mumbai 400 055.

¶5

2. Mr Pranshu Ravindra Dube

¶6

 Age 33 years, Occ: Service

¶7

 Aged about 33 years,

¶8

 r/at: 1202, Sanaya Xtiro,
 Rajendra Prasad Road,
 Mulund (West),
 Mumbai 400 080.… Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

1.The State of Maharashtra
Through Gamdevi Police Station… Respondent

¶11

Mr Girish Kulkarni,Sr Advocate i/b. Kripashankar Pandey a/w.
Ms.Mrunmaiee Kulkarni a/w. Omprakash Yadav for Petitioner.
Mr J P Yagnik, APP for the State.

¶12

Digitally signed by LATA LATA SUNIL SUNIL PANJWANI PANJWANI Date: 2023.07.20 18:01:05 +0530

¶13

CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE &
 R. N. LADDHA, JJ.

¶14

 DATE : 11th JULY 2023

¶15

Page No. 1 of 4 ______________________________________________ 11 July 2023

¶16

wp 1115.23.doc

¶17

Order (Per R. N. Laddha, J.) :-

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

2.Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith, with the
consent of and at the request of the learned counsel for the
parties.

¶20

3.The Petitioners have filed this Criminal Writ Petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to
quash the FIR No.307/2022 dated 15 June 2022 registered at
Gamdevi Police Station, Mumbai and the proceedings arising
from it.

¶21

4.The first petitioner, an employee of Kalpataru Limited,
received permission from DCP (Operations) to operate a
drone around their construction site, Kalpataru Hills
Residency Private Limited, located between Pedder Road and
the Russian Cultural Centre. The drone was to be used
between June 12th and 13th, 2022, in accordance with the
permission granted. However, the prosecution claims that the
Hon’ble Prime Minister’s visit was scheduled on June
14th,2022 owing to which VVIP movement was anticipated on
Pedder Road and, therefore, restrictions were imposed on

¶22

Page No. 2 of 4 ______________________________________________ 11 July 2023

¶23

wp 1115.23.doc using the drone. On June 13^th , 2022, while patrolling within the vicinity of Pedder Road and Russian Cultural Centre the first informant noticed a drone in the air and upon investigation, discovered that it had been flown in violation of the permission granted. The alleged breaches were that the drone was flown over a restricted area despite there being restrictions and the local police station had not been informed in advance.

¶24

5.The record shows that the learned Magistrate, owing to
the express bar of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. did not take
cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 188 of
Cr.P.C. and issued process against the petitioner for the
offence under Sections 37 punishable under 135 of the
Maharashtra Police Act. It reveals from record that on June 3,
2022, DCP (Operations) issued an order u/s 144 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, restricting drone flying activities
from June 11,2022 to July 10, 2022. However, permission
was granted for picturisation of the company’s project
development work through a drone by a letter dated June 11,
2022, vide No.CP/Desk-11(6)/SPT/3109/2022.

¶25

6.Learned Counsel for the petitioners was right in
contending that the police authority was aware of the alleged

¶26

Page No. 3 of 4 ______________________________________________ 11 July 2023

¶27

wp 1115.23.doc order issued u/s 144 of Cr.P.C. when granting permission. However, there is no mention of any such order in the permission letter dated June 11, 2022. Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that the alleged prohibitory order was properly promulgated as prescribed by Section 163 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

¶28

7. In view of this, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) which reads thus:

¶29

“(b) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash
and set aside the impugned charge-sheet filed and
pending before the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate’s 40th Court, at Girgaon, Mumbai,
vide C.C. No.1572/PS/2022 for offences
punishable under section 37 r/w 135 of the
Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.”

¶30

8. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms and Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶31

R. N. LADDHA, J. NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

¶32

Lata.S.Panjwani, P.S.

¶33

Page No. 4 of 4 ______________________________________________ 11 July 2023

Tirthankar Suvankar Ganguly and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tirthankar Suvankar Ganguly and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Haresh Gul Setpal and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Haresh Jayram Bhoir @ Haresh Yashwant Bhoir Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S Bhimashankar Developers through Its Authorised Signatory Mr. Yash Rajnish Bhandari and Ors. Vs Subhash Shaligram Gupta and Ors.

Aasif Tajpir Shaikh Alias Tajpir Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dilip Prabhakar Gheware Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Police Crime Brnach Thane and Anr.

Suman Rajendra Yadav and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.