Bombay High Court Issues Fresh Notice In Sameer Wankhede's Plea Against FIR In Liquor Licence Case

The Bombay High Court on Monday issued a fresh notice on a plea filed by controversial IRS officer Sameer Wankhede in 2022 seeking to quash an FIR lodged against him for allegedly falsifying his age to obtain a liquor licence for starting a hotel in Navi Mumbai, when he was a minor.

For context, the Kopri Police Station in Thane has booked Wankhede under Sections 181(false statement to public servant), 188 (disobeying public servant), 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (dishonest use of a forged document) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) after the Thane collector permanently cancelled the liquor licence for his Sadguru Hotel in Vashi, Navi Mumbai.

The police alleged that Wankhede falsified his age to obtain a liquor licence despite being a minor. He was 17-years-old at the relevant time, which he contends is at least 28 years ago, now. It is alleged by the prosecution that Wankhede purposely overstated his age and became a 'partner' in the hotel with his mother, in whose name the liquor licence, initially stood. 

The petition was listed before a division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Ranjitsinha Bhonsale on Monday. The bench, after the matter was called out, sought the copy of the original licence, which was issued in the name of Wankhede's mother, who died in 2015. However, the officer's legal team comprising senior advocate Aabad Ponda and counsel Rizwan Merchant could not furnish the same stating that it was not part of the record and therefore sought time to bring the same on record and also to amend the petition. 

The judges, while granting the request, also issued a fresh notice to the Inspector, Excise Department for being represented in the instant FIR.

However, Ponda reminded the court of the fact that his client was granted an interim protection from arrest, way back in February 2022 by a coordinate bench of the High Court. He pointed out that the FIR was a 'politically' motivated one because of his client's action of arresting a former minister's son-in-law in a drug case. 

The bench, however, said it will hear the matter after two weeks. 

Notably, Wankhede has contended that he was 17 at the time of the alleged offence by his mother.

"The Petitioner most vehemently submits that, admittedly, as per the contents of the FIR, the accused was 17 years of age when the alleged crime had taken place vide the mother of the Petitioner. That, by virtue of the Petitioner being merely 17 years of age, he was not a major during the commission of the alleged crime. That, the law of the land does not acknowledge that a minor had the capacity in order to orchestrate the entire crime at hand. In fact, the Petitioner was merely in college when the alleged offence is said to have taken place. That, the Petitioner was merely signing documents where he was asked by his mother to sign," the plea reads. 

Invoking the Juvenile Justice Act, Wankhede states that an offence, if any, should be heard by the Juvenile Justice Board.

"The Petitioner at the time of offense, if any, was 17 years old which is an admitted fact and as per the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, he has to be tried by the Juvenile Justice Board as per section 9 of the act. It is further submitted that as per section 2(k) of the said act the Petitioner was a Juvenile at the commission of the offense as per the documents and had not completed the age of 18 years and hence the Petitioner cannot be tried," the plea states.