"With great power comes great responsibility:" Bombay High Court junks plea by Navneet Rana, Ravi Rana to quash FIR in Hanuman Chalisa row

The Bombay High Court on Monday refused to quash a first information report (FIR) registered against Member of Parliament Navneet Rana and her husband, independent Member of Legislative Assembly Ravi Rana for assault of public servant in relation to the controversy arising out of the Hanuman Chalisa recital episode..The couple had approached the High Court contending that the case of assault of public servant was registered as a second FIR in connection with the incident and was meant to harass the petitioners and deny them bail. Earlier, an FIR for sedition had already been registered against them, it was pointed out. However, a bench of Justices PB Varale and SM Modak observed that that the two incidents (one leading to the case of sedition and other of assault) were separate and the petition deserves to be rejected. "We come to the conclusion that the two incidents are separate and the present petition does not merit the court’s indulgence," the Court ordered. "Such declaration of reading religious verses in someone else's house or even in public spaces is certainly breach of the personal liberty of the other person; the State is justified in carrying apprehension that such act will lead to disturbance in law and order situation" the Court observed in the order. It, however, clarified that the Magistrate shall not be influenced by the observations made in the order and shall hear the bail plea of the petitioners on its own merits.Pertinently, the Court also took exception to the conduct of the petitioners in threatening to recite Hanuman Chalisa in front of Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray's residence. "Petitioners who are active politically are expected to behave responsibly. Great power comes with great responsibility. The expectation of responsible conduct of those persons who have an active life, is a reasonable expectation," the order said. The Court also said that its earlier exhortation in another case that differences in ideologies and political convictions should not come in the way of cordial relationship between political opponents, fell on deaf ears. "Just two days back, we made observations that even if they are representatives of the people, they have to behave properly with the opposition members as well. Though we have made these observations, but those words fell on deaf ears. We thought our observations will be considered, better sense will prevail, but whatever we observed just fall on deaf ears," the Court remarked. .Petitioners who are active politically are expected to behave responsibly. Great power comes with great responsibility.Bombay High Court .Earlier this month, the MLA had demanded from the CM, who is also chief of ruling party Shiv Sena which is heading the State's coalition government, to recite the Hanuman Chalisa at his residence on the occasion of Hanuman Jayanti.He also warned that if the CM does not do so, he would go to Matoshree (Uddhav Thackeray's residence) to recite it.On April 23, he said he would go to Matoshree to recite, however the couple called off their plans later.The Mumbai police, however, arrested the two in the evening amidst protests by Shiv Sena members.The couple was initially booked under Sections 153A (causing enmity between different groups), Section 34 (common intention) and later on booked under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for challenging the government machinery and making remarks against Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray.The couple were also booked under provisions of the Bombay Police Act for causing law and order situation in the city.They was remanded to 14-day judicial custody on Sunday by a Special Metropolitan Magistrate for MPs and MLAs at Sewree, Mumbai.Their bail application is slated to be heard on April 29, 2022.Meanwhile, a second FIR was filed against them, this time under Section 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) of the IPC.The present petition was against the second FIR.The plea by the couple said that they were in police custody from 5 pm on April 23. However, the information regarding assault was received by the police station after a delay of 3 hours, that is at 8 pm.The Ranas were already under arrest at the relevant time when the alleged offence is said to have taken place, it was submitted.Thus, if there was any truth in the allegations made by the investigating agency, the same would have been recorded prior in point of time. The inordinate delay of 3 hours stands testimony to the foul play of the investigating agency, it was contended."The second FIR is a strategic and tactical FIR with the sole purpose of pressurising the Ranas as a result of a vengeful political vendetta," the plea said..Counsel for the petitioners claimed if the charge of sedition could be added to the first FIR, then the charge for assault could have also been added to it. "The first FIR is of 4 am in the morning. During the first remand, there was a statement made that Section 124A (sedition) was added. If you can add 124A then you could have added Section 353 (assault on public servant) also," it was submitted. The second FIR was registered to ensure that the couple remain in jail, he said. "This FIR cannot be allowed to continued. Because the moment bail is granted in this FIR, they will arrest me in the other FIR. I am told there are FIRs in Pune, Osmanabad and Amravati," the counsel argued. .Special Public Prosecutor Pradeep Gharat, appearing for State of Maharashtra, said that the second FIR arose from a distinct offence. Both the petitioners refused to co-operate with the police and they had an argument with the police and they said that the police could not arrest them. "At this juncture we see the facts and that the ingredients show a prima facie offence. If there is a false case, then then complainant will be liable. I am saying these are two distinct FIRs," he said. .The Bench questioned the SPP regarding addition of Section 124A to the first FIR. "The reading of Hanuman chalisa was merely a challenge. The CM is head of government machinery. They wanted to challenge the machinery. It was a cold-blooded and calculated move," the SPP said.Rana's counsel interjected at this juncture. "I just want to correct - we wanted to read at CM’s residence," he said. "On the street! Your representation says so. In front of residence means street," the Court said. "But it was cancelled," said the counsel. "That does not matter," the bench remarked. .[Read order]