Absence of Instigation Grounds Discharge Order; Impugned Orders Reversed

A writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, along with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner, a leader of the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena, was accused in a criminal case related to incidents in 2008. The judgment addresses the petitioner's argument that there was insufficient evidence to implicate them in the alleged crime.

The judgment notes that the charge sheet did not include evidence of a provocative speech allegedly made by the petitioner. It cites precedents where similar cases were quashed due to a lack of evidence of abetment or instigation.

Ultimately, the court finds in favor of the petitioner, ruling that there is insufficient evidence to sustain the charges against them. Consequently, the orders of the lower courts are quashed, and the proceedings against the petitioner are terminated.

1.   Introduction and Jurisdiction: The oral judgment outlines that it pertains to a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, alongside section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner, a leader of the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena, contests their implication in a criminal case arising from incidents in 2008.

2.   Petitioner's Challenge: The petition challenges an order dated 04.11.2023 passed by an Additional Sessions Judge, Paranda, and an order dated 12.05.2023 passed by a Judicial Magistrate First Class, Paranda. These orders affirmed the dismissal of the petitioner's discharge application in Regular Criminal Case No. 11/2009.

3.   Details of the Offense: The offense involves allegations against the petitioner and others for offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Bombay Police Act, and Criminal Law Amendment Act. It is alleged that the petitioner and co-accused damaged public property, including S.T. buses, during an incident on 21.10.2008.

4.   Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner, represented by a Senior Advocate, contends that they were not present at the scene of the offense on the stated date. They were arrested elsewhere and subsequently released on bail. The petitioner argues that there is no evidence of their involvement or instigation in the offense, and thus, their discharge application should not have been rejected.

5.  Prosecution's Response: The prosecution, represented by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, maintains that the co-accused's actions, coupled with their reference to the petitioner, constitute grounds for the petitioner's implication in the offense.

6.    Evaluation of Evidence: The court scrutinizes the evidence, noting the absence of the purported provocative speech allegedly made by the petitioner in the charge sheet. It highlights that none of the witnesses mentioned hearing such a speech.

7.  Precedents and Legal Analysis: The judgment references previous court decisions where similar cases were dismissed due to insufficient evidence of abetment or instigation. These cases serve as precedents supporting the petitioner's argument.

8.   Conclusion and Order: Based on the lack of evidence linking the petitioner to the offense, the court rules in favor of the petitioner. The impugned orders are reversed, and the proceedings against the petitioner in Regular Criminal Case No. 11/2009 are terminated.