2020 (6) TMI 766 - HC - Indian Laws

Compensation for violation of the petitioner s fundamental rights - HELD THAT - While the petitioner had impleaded only the State/Government of NCT of Delhi as respondent in the matter the complainant has also now been impleaded as party-respondent No.2 in the petition. Issue notice - List on 23.07.2020. Seeking stay of investigation and further proceedings against him in the subject FIR - HELD THAT - It is note-worthy that the offence comprised in section 505(2) IPC is in pari materia with that comprised in section 153A IPC inasmuch as it refers to acts and omissions that are intended to create enmity hatred or ill-will between different religions or communities - Although as submitted at the bar the petitioner has already been granted interim protection in anticipatory bail proceedings by the learned Additional Sessions Judge this court is of the prima-facie view that further investigation or proceedings pursuant to the FIR are likely to cause unwarranted and unjustified harassment to the petitioner. Without forming an opinion on the merits of this matter this court is persuaded to think that the filing of the complaint and registration of the FIR deserve to be considered - List on 23.07.2020.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Impleading the complainant as a party-respondent.
2. Exemption application.
3. Quashing of FIR.
4. Stay of investigation and further proceedings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Impleading the Complainant as a Party-Respondent:
At the outset, the court acknowledged the appearance of advocates on behalf of the complainant, upon whose complaint the FIR was registered. The court allowed the oral prayer made by the complainant's counsel to implead the complainant as party-respondent No.2, with no objection from the petitioner’s counsel. The court directed the filing of an amended memo of parties before the next date.

2. Exemption Application (Crl. M.A. No.7411/2020):
The court granted exemption to the petitioner, subject to the completion of all requirements of filing typed/clear/original/certified copies of annexures and documents, attested affidavits, and court fees within 10 days of the physical reopening of courts. The application was disposed of accordingly.

3. Quashing of FIR (W.P.(CRL) No. 895/2020):
The petitioner, a journalist and television anchor, sought quashing of FIR No.74/2020 registered under sections 290/505/505(2) IPC, and prayed for an investigation into the registration of the FIR by the State and compensation for violation of his fundamental rights. The court issued notice to the respondents, who sought time to file status reports/counter-affidavits. The petitioner argued that the FIR was based on a webcast made on 11.03.2020, where the complainant took issue with comments related to the Delhi riots. The petitioner’s counsel contended that the allegations in the FIR did not reflect the actual content of the webcast, and there was an inordinate delay in filing the complaint. The petitioner relied on several Supreme Court judgments to argue that the FIR should be quashed if it did not disclose a cognizable offence or was registered mala-fide. The court noted the unexplained delay in filing the complaint and the lack of substantial investigation post-FIR registration. It observed that the allegations did not disclose a cognizable offence and that the webcast content fell within the exception to section 505 IPC. The court found that further investigation would likely cause unwarranted harassment to the petitioner and stayed further investigation pending the next hearing.

4. Stay of Investigation and Further Proceedings (Crl. M.A. No. 7410/2020):
The petitioner sought a stay of investigation and further proceedings against him in the FIR. The court issued notice to the respondents, who sought time to file status reports/replies. The court noted that the FIR was registered based on a webcast, with the complainant alleging that the petitioner’s comments contained communal overtones and could cause public disaffection. The court observed that the FIR was registered almost three months after the alleged offence, with no substantial investigation carried out. It found that the allegations did not disclose a cognizable offence and that the FIR registration required further examination. The court, guided by Supreme Court precedents, stayed further investigation in the matter till the next hearing.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the impleading of the complainant as a party-respondent, granted exemption to the petitioner for filing documents, and issued notices for quashing the FIR and staying further investigation. The court found prima facie that the FIR did not disclose a cognizable offence and that further investigation would cause unwarranted harassment to the petitioner, thereby staying the investigation pending further deliberation.