The
Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court has refused to quash a case against
former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu and TDP leader Nakka
Ananda Babu for allegedly assaulting police personnel in Maharashtra in 2010.
A
division bench of Justices Mangesh Patil and Shailesh Brahme in its judgement
on May 10 said it has "no manner of doubt that there is enough material to
reveal complicity" of both Naidu and Babu in the commission of the alleged
crime.
The court dismissed the petitions filed by Telugu
Desam Party (TDP) chief Naidu and Babu seeking to quash the FIR lodged against
them with the Dharmabad police in Maharashtra's Nanded district.
The
FIR was registered on charges of assaulting or using criminal force against a
public servant, causing harm with dangerous weapons, rash acts endangering
lives of others, intentional insult with an intent to provoke breach of peace
and criminal intimidation.
The
bench in its order said it has "no manner of doubt that there is enough
material to reveal complicity of both the applicants (Naidu and Babu) in the
commission of the crime."
"The FIR expressly alleges about the applicant accused no. 1 (Naidu)
having instigated fellow prisoners and even threatened of there being a war
between the two states," the HC said.
The
bench noted that witnesses in their statements have expressly attributed role
of Naidu and Babu in commission of the offence and medical certificates show
many of the police officials sustained injuries.
It
is clear that the offence was committed by sharing a common intention to carry
out assault on police personnel, the high court said.
The
FIR was lodged promptly and even the injured police personnel were medically
examined immediately, it said.
"There
is enough material revealing complicity of the applicants (Naidu and Babu) in
commission of the crime with which they have been charged and it would not be
appropriate to quash the crime and the criminal case," the high court
said.
The
bench dismissed both the petitions but extended the interim protection granted
earlier till July 8 at the request of the duo's counsel Sidharth Luthra.
In
July 2010, Naidu and Babu were arrested along with 66 associates by the
Dharmabad police in connection with another case pertaining to protest and
agitation.
Naidu,
Babu and the others were remanded to judicial custody in the case and kept in a
temporary prison at the Government Rest House in Dharmabad.
When
their judicial custody was extended, the Maharashtra Prisons' DIG ordered for
them to be shifted to the Aurangabad central prison.
However,
Naidu and Babu refused to be shifted and allegedly started hurling abuses in
Telugu and English against the jail authorities.
When
the jailer requested the duo to board an air-conditioned bus, Naidu and Babu
allegedly declared that if they were forced to board the bus then there would
be a conflict between the two states.
The
allegation against the duo is that they instigated the other accused persons
and started using criminal force and even assaulted some police officials.
Additional
force was called and the accused, including Naidu and Babu, were shifted to the
Aurangabad central prison.
Senior
advocate Luthra, appearing for Naidu and Babu, argued that the FIR pertaining
to the agitation was withdrawn and the magistrate had discharged all the
accused in that case immediately.
However,
the police machinery was now implicating the duo in the assault case.
Luthra
argued the allegations in this case were false and concocted.
Under
provisions of the Prisons Act, only the superintendent of prisons has the power
to lodge FIRs, he said.
The
informant in the present case was a senior jailer who could not have acted
independently and did not have the power to lodge an FIR, Luthra said.
The
court, however, refused to accept the contention and said the accused have been
booked under provisions of the Indian Penal Code, which are independent
offences, and not the Prisons Act.
"The
impugned crime and the chargesheet merely seek to attract provisions of the
Indian Penal Code," the HC said.
Hence,
Luthra's submission would not be legally tenable, it added.
The
bench said the Prisons Act does not lay down any mechanism or procedure for
lodging FIRs under the Indian Penal Code in respect of crimes committed within
the premises of a prison.