1 WP.1140-2011.sxw acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITIOIN NO. 1140 OF 2011 Ms. Poonam Upadhyay .Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents. ----- Mr. Milan Desai i/b Sunil Vichare, for the Petitioner. Mr. J.P. Kharge, A.P.P. for the State. ---- CORAM: M.L. TAHALIYANI, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 28, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Kharge, learned A.P.P. appears for the State. 2. Perused the chargesheet. The petitioner is shown as absconding accused in the chargesheet. The accused in the chargesheet along with the petitioner are accused of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 145, 147 and Sec. 353 r/w Sec. 149, Sec.341 r/w Sec. 149 2 WP.1140-2011.sxw and Sec. 324 and 504 r/w Sec. 149 of I.P.C. 3. The petitioner is practicing Advocate of this court and courts subordinate to this court. The alleged incident had occurred at Ajmeri Co- Operative Hsg. Scy., Andheri (West), Mumbai. It is alleged that some of the members of the said housing society were not in favour of redevelopment of the property. They were, therefore, agitating against the demolition of their huts. Admittedly, the petitioner had no hut in the said society. The petitioner was Advocate for one of the hutment dwellers who had filed some proceedings against developer and builder. It is submitted that the petitioner was incidentally on the spot to show an order passed by this court in WP No.9939 of 2010 (Coram: V.M. Kanade, J). She had gone at the site to explain to the complainant-Thasildar Shri Chandrakant Srikar that he could not initiate demolition without paying compensation to the affected hutment dwellers. It appears from the FI.R. that there was some verbal quarrel between the petitioner and the Tahasildar. It is alleged that the petitioner had commented that Tahasildar could not read English properly. 3 WP.1140-2011.sxw 4. After having gone through the F.I.R. and the statements recorded during the investigation, what appears to me is that the grievance of the Complainant-Tahasildar against the petitioner is only to the extent that the petitioner had questioned complainant’s English knowledge. It appears that the complainant was furious against that. It is seen from the F.I.R. that the petitioner had a telephonic talk from Cell Phone of the complainant with the complainant’s superior officer also. 5. It is nowhere mentioned in the said F.I.R. and statements that the petitioner was a member of the alleged unlawful assembly. It is also not alleged that there was any overact on the part of the petitioner. It is absolutely clear from the F.I.R. and the statements of the witnesses that name of the petitioner has been intentionally recorded in the F.I.R. as the complainant was not happy with the comments of the petitioner. 6. It is very obvious that no case of unlawful assembly, rioting or assaulting a public servant in prosecution of common object of unlawful assembly is made out against the petitioner. The proceedings against the petitioner in Criminal Case No.1380/PS/11 pending before the 4 WP.1140-2011.sxw Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, at Andheri shall stand quashed. The name of the petitioner shall be deleted from the chargesheet. 7. Criminal Writ Petition No.1140 of 2011 is accordingly disposed of. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.)