MCC Violation: Bombay HC Quashes Criminal Proceedings against Raj Thackeray

The Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings against Maharashtra Navnirman Sena chief Raj Thackeray for allegedly violating the model code of conduct ahead of the 2010 civic polls.

A division bench of Justices Ajey Gadkari and Sharmila Deshmukh allowed the 2014 petition filed by the MNS head against the FIR (First Information Report).

The FIR originated from Thackeray’s visit to the Kalyan and Dombivali area for campaign purposes, intended to conclude by September 29, 2010, in accordance with a circular from the State Election Commission (SEC). A deputy commissioner of police, citing this circular, issued a notice to Thackeray, instructing him not to remain within the limits of the Kalyan-Dombivali Municipal Corporation (KDMC) after 10 pm on that specified date.

The notice explicitly barred Thackeray from visiting political party offices, residences, hotels, lodges, or guest houses in the area. Any breach could result in prosecution under section 126 of the Representation of Peoples Act.

Allegations surfaced that Thackeray had stayed beyond the stipulated time within the KDMC area and, upon a senior police inspector’s attempt to serve him a notice, refused to accept it. Consequently, the notice was affixed at the relevant location. An FIR was lodged against Thackeray under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for disobedience to a public servant’s order.

Following the completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed before the judicial magistrate in Kalyan, who acknowledged it and issued summons to Thackeray on January 10, 2011.

Thackeray appeared in court, securing bail on the same day. Subsequently, in 2014, he sought the quashing of the FIR before the High Court, which, on April 27, 2015, stayed the proceedings pending his plea.

Thackeray’s legal representative, Sayaji Nangre, argued that section 188 of the IPC constituted a cognizable offense, suggesting that proceedings should have been initiated through a complaint before the magistrate, not via an FIR.