Bombay HC directs police to let off writer Murzban Shroff

Murzban Shroff, the author of 'Breathless in Bombay', was given a breather by the Bombay high court on Friday. Justice BR Gavai directed the Social Service (SS) branch of Mumbai police to not take any coercive action against the author, who has been dragged in to a controversy for using the word ‘ghati’ in his debut novel.

In a hard hitting comment whose implication was clear, justice Gavai also asked the police to find those who were making statements much stronger than those made by Shroff in his book.
Activist Vijay Murdas had filed an FIR against Shroff in February 2009, objecting to certain dialogues in the book. The book includes 14 short stories and in one of them, ‘House of Mine’, the word ‘ghati’ was used. The story revolves around the occupants of a society facing an eviction notice from the housing board.
Justice Gavai, while granting three weeks' time to the prosecution to file a reply, also observed that prima facie, the magistrate had failed to apply his mind while directing further investigation in the case.

The court was informed by Shroff’s counsel, Mihir Desai, that although the NM Joshi Marg police station had closed the case against his client by filing a ‘C’ summary report, the magistrate directed further investigation in the case last month. (The NM Marg police station had on January 20 informed the Bombay high court that “they did not find any reason to prosecute the author and there is nothing offensive in the said book.”)

Additional public prosecutor Pradeep Hingorani told the court that the case, which was earlier being investigated by the NM Joshi Marg police station, is now in the hands of the Social Service branch.

Shroff moved the HC once again after a Magistrate’s court directed further investigation in a private complaint registered against him by a social activist. While disposing the petition, the HC had observed: “He is an author and not a trouble maker.”

Shroff told DNA that the police had pointed out that the book carried a “unifying message” and contained no objectionable material. “I am confused with this development,” he said.