Bombay High Court asks Mumbai Police to respond to plea by 16 persons accused of holding solidarity meet for Delhi riot victims

The Bombay High Court on Friday sought the Mumbai Police's response on a plea filed by 16 persons seeking quashing of criminal proceedings in a case registered against them by the police for holding solidarity march in February 2020 for the victims of Delhi riots, in violation of prohibitory orders issued by police..The criminal proceedings were initiated by the Mumbai Police after a candle light vigil was held at Dadar in Mumbai on February 26, 2020 to show solidarity with the victims and people of Delhi during the riots which took place in Delhi in 2020. Most of the petitioners received a notice the very next day that an FIR has been registered against them under Sections 37 (1) (Powers to prevent acts leading to disorder) and 135 (penalty for contravention of Section 37) of the Maharashtra Police Act (MPA). .They appeared before the Magistrate on March 3, 2020 and upon furnishing cash security of ₹7,000 and a personal bond of the same amount, were granted bail. A chargesheet was also filed in the case pursuant to which the petitioners moved the High Court through advocate Anandini Fernandes seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. .Notice was already issued last year, however, since no response had been filed in the case, the Bench of Justices SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar directed the Mumbai Police to respond to the petition by September 9, 2021. .The petitioners stated that chargesheet in the present case was filed under Section 37(1) (which pertains to assembling with arms) whereas the offence pertained to violation of written order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Operations) under Section 37(3) of the MPA.The petitioners submitted that filing of a case and subsequent chargesheet under Section 37(1) of the MPA was unwarranted. .Another ground was that the petitioners comprised mainly of students, senior citizens, and social activists who did not have any criminal antecedents. The nature and purpose of the gathering also made it apparent that there was going to be no likelihood of breach of peace and disturbance of public tranquility let alone grave danger to human lives. .The chargesheet also allegedly comprised of only one witness statement by an Assistant Police Inspector who stated that the prohibitory order was announced over mega phones on February 20, 2020 and stuck outside notice boards of police stations. However, the same was not corroborated by documents, it was submitted..The petitioners, therefore, sought quashing of the chargesheet and criminal proceedings on the ground that no fruitful purpose will be served if the proceedings are allowed to continue.