Mumbai: A citizen exercising his right to protest by sending messages to an official on his or her cellphone cannot be booked for obstructing a public servant from his or her official duty, the Bombay High Court held on Thursday [Avijit Michael v. State of Maharashtra]
A Bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and MM Sathaye quashed a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against a Avijit Michael, who had sent messages to then Managing Director of Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ashwini Bhide urging her not to cut down over 3,000 trees in the city’s only green lung – Aarey Colony – for the purpose of metro construction.
On perusing the messages, the Court noted that the petitioner’s intention was only to protect the forest he considers to be acting like a pair of lungs for the city of Mumbai.
“These messages do not contain any offensive material or any obscenities. Rather, they appear to have been sent in assertion of a democratic right of citizen of this country to put forth his view point, to object, to protest, to persuade, to urge, and so on. It then follows that if anybody is booked for criminal offences such as those as have been registered against the present petitioner, it may amount to an invasion upon the rights of the citizens of this country,” the order stated.
On the complaint lodged on behalf of Bhide by another person, the Court said,
“Upon such a complaint, as the one involved here, police must never book any ordinary citizen of the country under criminal law and if it does, it would be like suppressing his voice against what he considers to be a wrongful thing. We,therefore, find that no offence under Section 186 IPC is made out against the petitioner.”
The messages sent by Michael stated that just like Cubbon Park is a green lung for Bangalore, Aarey is a green lung for Mumbai. Therefore, cutting of over 3,500 trees for constructing the metro car shed would have an adverse effect on city’s greenery.
Bhide had claimed to be “shocked, offended and obstructed” by these messages. However, she did not lodge any complaint. Rather, the Cyber Cell of the Mumbai Police registered a case against the petitioner on a complaint by a private person.
Having gone through the messages, the Court said that they do not show that the petitioner intended to obstruct Bhide or that he had any knowledge that by sending those messages, he would create the effect of obstructing Bhide from discharging her public functions.
“These messages show at their face-value that the sender of the messages was the person who had intention to make efforts for preservation of the trees in the larger interest of society,” the Court opined.
It, therefore, quashed the FIR in question and cautioned the police to be careful while registering crimes in such matters in the future.
Senior Advocate Gayatri Singh along with Advocates Vijay Hiremath and Surya Kale appeared for the petitioner.
Additional Public Prosecutor KV Saste represented the State.
Advocates Vijay Ghodia and Rakesh Sawant appeared for the complainant.
