Bombay High Court refused to quash FIR against ex-AIMIM MLA Farukh Shah for illegally building and naming a public square. Court ruled he violated legal procedures and misused public funds.
Mumbai: Today, on June 30, the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad has recently refused to cancel the First Information Report (FIR) filed against former AIMIM MLA Farukh Shah.
He is accused of using government money to build a public square in Dhule and naming it ‘Tipu Sultan Chowk’ without following the proper legal process.
ALSO READ: “No Reason to Bar the Rally” – Bombay HC Clears AIMIM’s Tipu Sultan Jayanti Event in Pune
A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay A Deshmukh made it clear that a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) does not have the power to name a public place on his own.
The judges stated,
“A public square (chowk), road or place cannot be named by the MLA on his own. There is a procedure under the Maharashtra Municipalities Act as well as Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, wherein the proposal is required to be tabled before the concerned authority i.e. the general body meeting of the elected members and then after the consensus, such place would be named accordingly.”
The Court also noticed that there were contradictions in Shah’s arguments. On one hand, Shah defended the naming of the square after Tipu Sultan, but on the other hand, he claimed he did not know about the construction.
The bench remarked,
“Both these acts cannot go together.”
The FIR was filed in June 2023 based on a complaint by social worker and advocate Rohit Chandole. He alleged that Shah, who was a sitting MLA at that time, used his position to misuse public funds and construct a raised platform in Dhule without permission from the municipality.
Chandole also said that naming the square after Tipu Sultan without following the legal procedure created hatred between two communities.
As a result of the complaint, Shah was booked by the police under several serious sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
These include Section 153A for promoting enmity between different groups, Section 295A for deliberate and malicious acts intended to insult religious beliefs, Section 506 for criminal intimidation, Section 124A for sedition, Section 120B for criminal conspiracy, and Section 404 for misappropriation of property.
He was also charged under state laws for defacing public property.
Shah’s lawyer argued that the entire case was politically motivated and that the complaint was filed by someone from a rival political party.
The defence said that naming a square after Tipu Sultan, who is considered a historical figure and freedom fighter, was not a crime and did not disturb peace between communities.
The defence also highlighted a supplementary statement that the complainant allegedly made months after the original FIR.
This new statement included corruption allegations, and the defence argued that this delayed addition made the entire complaint look suspicious.
However, the prosecution questioned how Shah had access to this supplementary statement. According to the report filed by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), the statement had not been officially shared with Shah, and a probe was started to investigate how it got leaked.
The Court criticized the defence for submitting a document that had not been legally obtained.
The bench said,
“We deprecate such practice.”
The Court added,
“It is the bounden duty of the Advocate representing such party to consider whether the said document has come to his client by legal means or not.”
The Court also pointed out that there was evidence suggesting the illegal construction was carried out under the supervision of a relative of Shah.
It also noted that Shah did not take any steps to stop the construction. The platform has now been demolished.
Moreover, the Court observed that the police were still investigating whether public funds were misused for the construction.
It also noted that there were social media posts allegedly made by Shah that contained offensive comments against respected historical figures like Vinayak Savarkar and Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj.
Since the investigation is still going on, the Court refused to cancel the FIR at this stage. The bench chose not to interfere in the matter, stating that it was too early to do so.
Advocate SS Kazi appeared for Farukh Shah. Additional Public Prosecutor AR Kale represented the State. Advocate Chetan B Chaud represented the complainant, Rohit Chandole.
Case Title:
Farukh Shah v State of Maharashtra and anr.
Read Order:
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Tipu Sultan
