MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Tuesday quashed a first information report (FIR) registered with Gamdevi police in Mumbai against Jeetendra Navlani for allegedly refusing to shut his south Mumbai restaurant and bar on time in 2019 by claiming he was connected to the former Mumbai police commissioner Param Bir Singh.
He was booked for obstructing public servant on official duty, criminal intimidation and other offences under Indian Penal Code as well as offences under the Bombay Prohibition Act.
He sought quashing of the FIR and chargesheet against him.
The HC bench of Justices PB Varale and SM Modak in a 17-page judgment said Navlani’s senior counsel Aabad Ponda "vehemently submitted that the lodgment of the FIR and proceedings arising out of it...is an act of abuse of process of law" and the police actions are "clearly unsustainable".
The HC said, "We are of the opinion that the counsel for the applicant made out a case for allowing the Petition."
Public prosecutor Aruna Pai opposing his quashing plea and citing witness statements sought its dismissal.
On November 23, 2019, a police constable attached to a patrolling squad led by police inspector A Dange at around 1.20am entered Bhulabhai Desai Road and into a building to verify if "Bombay Cartel and Dirty Buns Sobo was closed or not" as required by law.
The manager informed the police that it was shut and the patrons had "already left" and at that time Navlani came and introducing himself to Dange requested to be permitted to keep it open beyond permitted hours, the prosecution said, adding when Dange refused, Navlani allegedly dropped names of certain senior police officers in an attempt to pressor him.
Navlani then directed his staff to remove all guests from the restaurant and while they were leaving there was some scuffle and three guests were taken to the police station.
Police alleged that Navlani helped a guest flee away, but the HC after perusing the witness statement said it in no way indicates that the accused did so.
Two days later Ponda said Navlani got a notice from the police station to attend, which he did but the officer was not there and Navlani then requested to be permitted to attend on December 4, 2019 since he had prior travel plans from November 27 to December 3.
On his return in December he found himself arrayed as an accused in the FIR.
Ponda said the independent witness statement does not reflect anything against Navlani, only the police official’s statement does and added that when there are two sets of versions available on record, the set of independent witnesses would clearly wash out the theory of police officials.
Ponda said, "Therefore, it would be unsafe to rely on those statements to ask the applicant to face criminal proceedings."
The HC also said Navlani had initially not been named as accused and only named after a few days when the charge sheet was filed.
The HC also said Navlani clearly said he was willing to cooperate with the police probe and the case was fit to be quashed to "secure the ends of justice."
