Mumbai: The Bombay High Court discharged three lawyers accused of assault and criminal force for asking Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) officers to display their identity cards during a 2007 search.
The court noted that such a request does not constitute an offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with the offence of using criminal force or assault to prevent a public servant from performing their duty.
Justice Milind Jadhav, on November 21, also directed the State to pay Rs 15,000 each to the three lawyers for the 17-year-long legal battle they endured in the matter, after noting that the trial had not even commenced despite a chargesheet being filed.
The HC was hearing a petition filed by Gobindram Talreja, 76, Haresh Motw., 72 and Prateek Sanghvi, 38 (intern), who were accused of obstructing CBI officers during the raid, seeking quashing of the case.
The three were booked by the Vakola police in November 2007 for allegedly obstructing CBI officers from conducting raid at their client’s, Sonal Chitroda, premises. Chitroda, reported mistreatment by the officers, prompting advocate Talreja to send colleagues Motw. and intern Sanghvi to the scene.
The lawyers asked the CBI officers to identify themselves and insisted on being present during the search. This led to their arrest, with the CBI alleging obstruction and criminal force. However, the Court noted that “there is nothing on record… to show use of assault, criminal force, obstruction, and preventing the search.”
Calling the arrests a “clear case of abuse of power,” the Court observed that the incident arose from the “wounded ego” of a CBI officer. Justice Jadhav criticised law enforcement for blindly supporting the CBI’s actions, stating, “The Police Authorities have also blindly played a subservient role to the CBI Officers by arresting the Applicants without application of mind about the applicability of Section 353 IPC.”
The court highlighted the toll on the three lawyers, particularly Sanghvi, who was only a law intern at the time. “This Court can only imagine what must have gone through the mind of a young college-going law student… to have suffered the ignominy, disgrace, and infamy when… he was arrested,” the judge remarked. Talreja and Motw. also spent 17 years fighting the charges, enduring “anxiety” and a “serious blow” to their careers.
The Court emphasised the lack of evidence against the accused, noting that the lawyers complied when asked to leave and were arrested for actions they “did not even comprehend or do.” It directed the State to pay Rs15,000 each to the three lawyers as compensation for their prolonged legal ordeal, stating, “The costs are awarded to send a clear message… that legal provisions are not misused… and that the rule of law prevails.”
The case underscores the misuse of Section 353 IPC and highlights the need for accountability among law enforcement agencies.
