PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa has quashed the issue of process against former Goa deputy chief minister and Aldona MLA Dayanand Narvekar and 11 others who were booked by the Mapusa Police and were proceeded against by the Magistrate based on a complaint by Glenn Souza Ticlo, who alleged that they were distributing cash, and had formed an unlawful assembly at Aldona back in 2012.
The High Court ruled that there was no case made out for the magistrate to issue a process and quashed the order.
“Admittedly, it was election time and accordingly, the alleged incident took place in front of the house/office of petitioner No.1 (Dayanand Narvekar) who was one of the candidates in the said elections. It is normal that during elections, the supporters, party workers and other persons are bound to gather in front of the office of the candidate. Thus, such gathering even of a large number of persons cannot automatically become unlawful, unless the object of such assembly is found to be the one mentioned in Section 141 of IPC,” the High Court single bench of Justice Bharat Deshpande ruled.
“Either the common object should be to use criminal force or to commit any mischief or offence etc. In the complaint, it is clear that the Complainant was not present at the spot. However, what he has stated is only based on the information received by him from his party workers including Melwyn and others. The statement of Melwyn, John, Deelip and Anil only disclosed that Petitioner No.1 along with 40 others, threatened them to assault. Similarly, Petitioner No.1 instructed the supporters to get bats, hockey sticks, from the car to assault them, however, in the meantime the Mapusa Police came to diffuse the situation,” the High Court ruled.
“Thus, the contention that the assembly was unlawful is not made out as no criminal force was used by such assembly. Only the statement that the Petitioner No. 1 threatened them with assault, was diffused on arrival of the Mapusa Police. The statements of these four witnesses are identical and stereotyped. There is no mention that either the Petitioner No.1 or his 40 supporters were actually having the weapons in their hands or such weapons were removed or brought from the car/vehicle,” the High Court also said.
“It was during election time and thus, filing such complaints and allegations against each other is but natural. However, the matter in hand clearly goes to show that ingredients of the offending section are not established so as to issue process and to proceed with the trial. Accordingly, the extraordinary power available in this Court, under section 482 of Cr.P.C could be well used in the present situation for the purpose of closing the proceedings as no purpose would be served in continuing with such matter,” the High Court also said.
