Mumbai, Nov 10 (IANS): In a relief to Maharashtra Navnirman Sena President, the Bombay High Court has quashed a FIR and criminal proceedings against Raj Thackeray accusing him of violating the election code of conduct in the 2010 civic polls in a Thane town, here on Friday.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Ajey S Gadkari and Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh allowed a criminal application filed by the MNS chief challenging the FIR and proceedings against him for allegedly discarding an order of a public servant by overstaying in Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation (KDMC) prior to the 2010 elections there.

As per the FIR, Raj Thackeray was expected to wind up his campaign in the KDMC polls by September 29, 2010, complying with a Maharashtra State Election Commission circular.

Acting on the circular, the local Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) had served a notice to the MNS chief asking him to keep out of the KDMC area after 10 p.m. on September 29, 2010 and barred him from visiting any political party office, homes, hotels, lodges, guest houses, etc., or face prosecution under the Representation of Peoples Act, Section 126.

However, Raj Thackeray had allegedly flouted the directives by living in a house within the KDMC limits beyond the notified time limits, and when a local police officer went there to serve him a notice; he refused to accept it, so it was pasted outside the location.

Later, the Kalyan-Dombivali Police lodged a FIR, filed a charge sheet in 2011 before a Kalyan Court, which summoned Raj Thackeray on February 5 that year and he was granted bail that day.

Subsequently, in 2014, the MNS chief, through his lawyer Sayaji Nangre, moved the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of the FIR and criminal proceedings in that case, and got a stay in April 2015, with directions to expedite the hearing.

Justice Gadkari and Justice Deshmukh ruled that the notice issued to Raj Thackeray did not constitute an order duly promulgated and hence no offence under the Section 188 was made out, accepting Nangre’s argument that the particular Section was a non-cognisable offence, so proceedings could be initiated not through a FIR, but through a complaint before a Magistrate which was not made.