Bombay HC stays probe against AAP Mumbai president in FIR under SC/ST Act

A division bench of Justice S B Shukre and M M Sathaye granted interim relief to Menon in her plea seeking to quash the FIR registered at Andheri police station. Menon and one Manu Pillai from Dombivli, who is also an AAP party member, claimed the FIR was completely “false, fabricated and baseless” and they have been implicated since they belonged to a “prominent opposition party.”

The petitioners, in their writ plea, alleged that the complainant, Sanjay Bhikaji Kamble, was removed from the party due to anti-party activities and had filed the complaint “out of clear political vendetta” and as an “afterthought.”

As per the complainant, who had joined AAP in 2022, Menon and 25-30 others present at the party office on March 10 indulged in  sloganeering and manhandled him after he raised his concerns.

Menon allegedly said Kamble’s “mentality was low” and Pillai allegedly ran towards him to hit him, which prompted him to file a complaint against the two. Thereafter, the petitioners were booked for offences punishable under sections 143 (unlawful assembly),147 (rioting), 500 (defamation), 504 (intentional insult) and 506 (threat) of the IPC, along with the provisions of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989.

Menon, in her plea, alleged that the FIR was registered due to influence by rival political parties, while membership of the complainant and few other party members was terminated after they were allegedly found to be involved in anti-party activities.

Senior advocate Mihir Desai and advocate Vijay Hiremath. representing Menon, pointed out the six-day delay in filing of FIR from the date of the incident. The lawyers said the complaint was vague and did not specify as to what casteist slurs were used.

The petition also contended that all the offences levelled against the accused were punishable with less than seven years of imprisonment, and notice under 41A (notice of appearance issued by investigating officer) of the Criminal Procedure Code was not issued to them.

“… There were more than 25 people in the said meeting and nobody else has made such a complaint against the petitioners. The impugned complaint FIR of March 25 is only a backlash to the complaint filed by Menon on March 11 against persons, including the complainant,” stated the plea.

Pending hearing of the plea, the petitioners sought stay on investigation and direction to police to not file chargesheet in the same. The court stayed the investigation until the next hearing after four weeks.