TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s persuaded to think that the filing of the complaint and registration of the FIR deserve to be considered - List on 23.07.2020. - W.P. (CRL.) No.895/2020 - - - Dated:- 10-6-2020 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI For the Appellant : Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Varun Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Piyush Singhal, Advocate for GNCTD. Mr. Anil Soni, Advocate with Mr. Ajay Digpaul, Advocate and Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, Advocate for complainant. ORDER At the outset, Mr. Ajay Digpaul, Mr. Anil Soni and Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, Advocates have appeared on behalf of the complainant/ Mr. Naveen Kumar, upon whose complaint the First Information Report (FIR) that is subject matter of the present proceedings was registered. 2. Upon oral prayer made by counsel on behalf of the complainant; and with no objection from Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the complainant Mr. Naveen Kumar is impleaded as party-respondent No.2 in the present proceedings. 3. Amended memo of parties be filed before the next date. Crl. M.A. No.7411/2020 (exemption) 4. Exemption is granted, subject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt current affairs issue. About 08 minutes of the webcast was in relation to the politics of government formation in the State of Madhya Pradesh in the context of some recent happenings. According to Mr. Singh, as per the allegations contained in the FIR, this part of the webcast is not subject matter of the FIR. The second part, of about 04 minutes was in relation to the riots that happened in the North-East part of Delhi in February 2020; and the complainant s grievance appears to be with what was said during the webcast in relation to the riots ; and that was subject matter of the complaint made and the FIR registered against the petitioner. 15. The essence of the allegations contained in the FIR are extracted below : (Extract from the record) (Extract from the record) 16. The complaint, as extracted in the FIR, has been filed by respondent No. 2 Shri Naveen Kumar, who is a spokesperson of a political party. The FIR further records as under: (Extract from the record) (Extract from the record) 17. Based on the complaint, the FIR records that the petitioner is spreading rumours and misinformation about the sensitive issue of the Delhi riot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o three years, or with fine, or with both. Section 505(2): (2) Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes.-Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. The exception to section 505 is of significance, and reads as under : Exception.-It does not amount to an offence, within the meaning of this section, when the person making, publishing or circulating any such statement, rumour or report, has reasonable grounds for believing that such statement, rumour or report is true and makes, publishes or circulates it in good faith and without any such intent as aforesaid. 21. Accordingly, the belief on the part of a person making a statement that such statement is true, goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een made by some member of the common public who may be aggrieved but by a person who is admittedly a spokesperson of a ruling political party at the Centre; (h) That in the circumstances, as per law laid down by the Supreme Court as cited hereinafter, the FIR deserves to be quashed and all proceedings arising therefrom should be set aside. 23. Citing judicial precedents in the petitioner s favour, Mr. Vikas Singh relies on the following judgments of the Supreme Court:- (a) State of Haryana Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal Ors. : 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 (para 102), to submit that where primafacie no offence is made-out or the allegations do not disclose commission of a cognizable offence or the FIR appears to have been registered mala-fide, the same deserves to be quashed; (b) Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. Ors. : (2014) 2 SCC 1 (para 120.6), to urge that no FIR should have been registered without at least first conducting a preliminary inquiry; (c) Imtiyaz Ahmad vs. State of U.P. Ors.: (2012) 2 SCC 688 (para 55), to argue that this court has unquestionable authority to order stay of investigation pursuant to lodging of an FIR. 24. Mr. Singh further submits that althou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view a matter such as this. 28. In Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. Ors. (2014) 2 SCC 1 the Supreme Court has said this: 120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: * * * * * * 120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. * * * * * * 120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: (a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes (b) Commercial offences (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months' delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. (Emphasis supplied) 29. In State of Karnataka vs . L. Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699 the Sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supplied) 30. In the leading case on the power to quash proceedings under section 482 CrPC, in State of Haryana Ors vs. Bhajan Lal Ors 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Supreme Court has laid down 7 categories of cases in which it would be legally justified to quash an FIR, the relevant ones of which are : 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated form, this Court cannot overlook the most important factor in the administration of justice. The authority of the High Court to order stay of investigation pursuant to lodging of FIR, or trial in deserving cases is unquestionable. But this Court is of the view that the exercise of this authority carries with it the responsibility to expeditiously dispose of the case. The power to grant stay of investigation and trial is a very extraordinary power given to the High Courts and the same power is to be exercised sparingly only to prevent an abuse of the process and to promote the ends of justice. It is therefore clear that: (i) Such an extraordinary power has to be exercised with due caution and circumspection. (ii) Once such a power is exercised, the High Court should not lose sight of the case where it has exercised its extraordinary power of staying investigation and trial. (iii) The High Court should make it a point of finally disposing of such proceedings as early as possible but preferably within six months from the date the stay order is issued. (Emphasis supplied) 33. Now in the above juridical backdrop, it is note-worthy that the offence comprised in secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ract either of the two sections. (Emphasis supplied) 34. On a prima-facie view, in the present case, the following aspects emerge from the record : (i) That there is substantial unexplained delay in filing of the complaint and registration of the FIR inasmuch as the date of the alleged offence is 11.03.2020 whereas the complaint came to be made only on 03.06.2020 leading to registration of FIR on 04.06.2020, which is a delay of almost 3 months. Such delay would have required a preliminary enquiry as per the mandate of Lalita Kumari (cf. para 120.6 of judgment, supra) ; (ii) That even after registration of the FIR on 04.06.2020, as per the statement made by counsel for respondent No.1, no substantial investigation has been carried-out except for issuance of notice to YouTube ; and the petitioner has not been called to join investigation. He says, in fact that he learned of the registration of the FIR through social media and from the public domain; (iii) That what the complainant alleges was said in the webcast, is not what appears in the transcript of the webcast ; and to that extent no cognizable offence is disclosed on the basis of the material cited by the compla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
