9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 702X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Station Sadar, District Nagpur City. The details of this FIR are: Maharashtra FIR No. 238 of 2020, dated 22 April 2020, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Nagpur City, Maharashtra, Under Sections 153, 153-A, 153-B, 295-A, 298, 500, 504(2), 506, 120-B and 117 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. Apart from the above FIR, as many as fourteen other FIRs and complaints have been lodged against the Petitioner, of which the details are extracted below: * FIR No. 245 of 2020, dated 22 April 2020, registered at Police Station Supela, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Under Sections 153-A, 295-A and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code 1860. * FIR No. 180 of 2020, dated 23 April 2020, registered at Police Station Bhilal Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Under Sections 153-A, 188, 290 and 505(1) of the Indian Penal Code 1860. * FIR No. 176 of 2020, dated 22 April 2020, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Under Sections 153-A, 295-A and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code 1860. * Complaint dated 21 April 2020 by District Congress Committee-Antagrah, Kanker, Chhattisgarh. * Complaint dated 22 April 2020 by Pritam Deshmukh (adv.), Durg District Congre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct from the Writ Petition which has been instituted by the Petitioner before this Court Under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution: A review of the above debate would show that its thrust was to question the tardy investigation, inconsistent versions of the authorities and the administration and the State Government's silence on the Palghar incident given that the unfortunate incident happened in Maharashtra which is presently Under Rule of an alliance government jointly formed by Shiv Sena, the Congress and the Nationalist Congress Party. The debate highlighted the manner in which the incident was being portrayed by the authorities, including the glaring fact that the incident occurred in the presence of numerous police officials which fact was initially suppressed. 5. The Petitioner claims that following the broadcast, "a well-coordinated, widespread, vindictive and malicious campaign" was launched against him by the Indian National Congress [INC] and its activists. The campaign, he alleges, was carried out online through news reports and tweets indicating that members of the INC had filed multiple complaints simultaneously against the Petitioner before various police sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shtra by Mr. Kapil Sibal; on behalf of the State of Chhattisgarh by Mr. Vivek Tankha; and on behalf of the State of Rajasthan by Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi. Having heard the rival submissions, this Court noted in its interim order that the order which it intended to pass should strike a balance between the following governing principles: (i) The need to ensure that the criminal process does not assume the character of a vexatious exercise by the institution of multifarious complaints founded on the same cause in multiple States; (ii) The need for the law to protect journalistic freedom within the ambit of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution; (iii) The requirement that recourse be taken to the remedies available to every citizen in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; (iv) Ensuring that in order to enable the citizen to pursue legal remedies, a protection of personal liberty against coercive steps be granted for a limited duration in the meantime; (v) The investigation of an FIR should be allowed to take place in accordance with law without this Court deploying its jurisdiction Under Article 32 to obstruct the due process of law; and (vi) Assuaging the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law. It was clarified that any such application shall be considered on its own merits by the competent court; (vi) Stayed further proceedings in respect of any other FIR, or as the case may be, criminal complaints which have been filed or which may thereafter be filed with respect to the same incident; and (vii) Directed the Commissioner of Police [CP], Mumbai to consider the request of the Petitioner for being provided with security at his residence and at the business establishment. 10. Following the interim order of this Court, several interim applications were filed in the course of the proceedings. The details of each of the IAs are necessary to facilitate our eventual analysis of the case: IA No. 48585 of 2020: filed by the Petitioner 11. The Petitioner submits that: (i) The Mumbai police is not conducting a fair and impartial investigation in relation to FIR 238 of 2020 [Renumbered as FIR 164 of 2020 at NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai.] which has been transferred from Police Station Sadar, District Nagpur City to NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai for investigation; (ii) The manner in which the investigation has been conducted by the Mumbai police leads ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omplaint by the President of the INC and hence, it is inconceivable as to how the IO could have questioned the Petitioner on an alleged act of defamation which he, in any event, denies; (i) Tweets made on the social media by members of the INC during and around the time of the investigation indicate that the Mumbai police was relying on real time information during the course of the interrogation by "their political masters"; (j) Questions posed to the Petitioner during the course of the investigation have no nexus to FIR 164 of 2020. The questions which were posed included the following: (i) Corporate structure of the Petitioner's company, ARG Outlier Media Asianet Private Limited ("ARG") including its board of directors. ARG owns and operates Republic TV and R. Bharat. (ii) Process of obtaining broadcasting licenses by the news channels of the Petitioner. (iii) Location of archives of Petitioner's news channels; whether the Hindi channel of the Petitioner, R. Bharat is based outside or inside Maharashtra. (iv) Does the Petitioner's news channel send recordings of news reports to the Central Government (this question was asked multiple times.) (v) Process ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments. Pursuant to the notice, the CFO appeared before the Mumbai police with publicly available documents and copies of broadcast licenses. He was interrogated for about 6.5 hours inter alia in regard to the following aspects: (i) Role of the Petitioner's wife, Mrs. Samyabrata Ray Goswami in the news channels and the corporate structure of company. (ii) Details of the investors in the Petitioner's company, ARG Outlier Media News Private Limited and whether the Petitioner ran the news channel as a proxy owner for an on behalf of someone else. (iii) Surprisingly, Mr. Sundaram was also asked whether there was "someone" instructing the Petitioner to pose questions concerning Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and concerning her alleged defamation. (iv) As with the Petitioner, Mr. Sundaram was also asked if the Petitioner's news channel has any arrangement of sending video recording of news reports to the Central Government. (v) Details on how the Petitioner's channel selects panelists for news shows and whether any remuneration is paid to them. (m) It has been allegedly learned that an asymptomatic officer attached to the NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai where the CFO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ars from the following averments: (i) On 27 April 2020, the Petitioner attended the NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai at 9 am accompanied by an entourage of his reporters and camerapersons and gave several speeches which were allegedly telecast live; (ii) After the Petitioner had been interrogated for 4 hours, a tweet was posted on Republic Bharat stating in Hindi that upon coming out of the police station, the Petitioner had claimed that 'truth will prevail'; (iii) Two other tweets posted on Republic Bharat in regard to the conduct of the investigation have sought to create an impression that: (a) The police is biased; (b) The FIR lodged by the Petitioner is not being investigated; and (c) The Petitioner has been unnecessarily questioned over several hours; (iv) On 28 April 2020, the Petitioner hosted a debate on Republic Bharat in the course of a programme titled "Puchta hai Bharat" where he made allegations against the Commissioner of Police [CP], Mumbai of his complicity in a scam involving India Bulls. The Petitioner threatened to reveal these details; (v) The statements against the CP are intended to hinder the course of the investigation and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merly FIR 238 of 2020] and the consequent investigation initiated by the State of Maharashtra are illegal and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the Petitioner Under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution; (iii) A writ of prohibition restraining the State of Maharashtra from registering any FIR against the Petitioner in relation to the broadcast on R Bharat on 21 April 2020 in relation to the Palghar incident; and (iv) A writ of prohibition restraining the State of Maharashtra from continuing any investigation initiative pursuant to FIR 164 of 2020. Among the documents which have been annexed to the IA for amendment are copies of: (a) FIR 238 of 2020 registered on 22 April 2020 at Police Station Sadar, District Nagpur city which now stands transferred; (b) Copies of the complaints lodged in relation to the broadcast on 21 April 2020 by R Bharat at diverse police stations across the country; (c) The tweets posted from the tweeter accounts of members of the INC party; (d) The transcript of the interview with the complaint of FIR 164 of 2020; and (e) The notices issued to the CFO on 30 April 2020 by the Senior Police Inspector, NM Joshi Marg Police Statio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er as the "anchor and owner" of R Bharat has attempted to connect a place of religious worship with the gathering of migrant workers at Bandra railway station. The FIR has been registered Under Sections 153, 153A, 295A, 500, 505(2), 511, 505(1)(c) and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Challenging the FIR, the Petitioner seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court for an order quashing the FIR and for a writ directing that no cognisance should be taken on any complaint or FIR on the same cause of action hereafter. 20. Leading the arguments on behalf of the Petitioner, Mr. Harish Salve, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petition which has been instituted before this Court Under Article 32 raises "wider issues" implicating the freedom of speech and expression of a journalist to air views which fall within the protective ambit of Article 19(1)(a). Mr. Salve submitted that the Petitioner is justified in invoking this jurisdiction since it is necessary for this Court to lay down safeguards which protect the democratic interest in fearless and independent journalism. The submissions which Mr. Salve urges can be formulated for analysis thus: (i) Both the FIRs which have been lod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lternative, it be handed over to the CBI. 21. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General has urged that this is a peculiar situation where the Mumbai police, as the investigating agency, has sought the protection of this Court in order to conduct a fair and impartial investigation, complaining that the Petitioner is impeding the process. The Solicitor General submitted that in this backdrop, it would be appropriate if the Court were to decide that an impartial agency conduct the investigation. Mr. Mehta urged that should this Court be inclined to hand over the investigation to the CBI, the agency will conduct the investigation. The Solicitor General urged that: (i) The conduct of the state police in the present case is 'disturbing'; (ii) The police, as an investigating agency, has sought insulation from the Accused; and (iii) Investigation by an agency which allays any apprehension of victimisation would be the appropriate course of action. 22. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra has, while opposing the petitions, urged that: (i) Both the petitions are an attempt to seek directions from this Court to monitor the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 32 of the Constitution ought not to be entertained. 23. Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the investigating agency of the Maharashtra police adduced seven precepts as the foundation of his submission that the petitions ought not to be entertained. Dr Singhvi urged: (i) The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate that in the garb of an arc of protection, the Accused is attempting to browbeat the police; (ii) The petitions Under Article 32 constitute an attempt of 'leapfrogging' the normal procedure available under the Code of Criminal Procedure; (iii) Any interference in the course of an investigation is impermissible; (iv) What the Petitioner seeks to attempt by the process which has been adopted is to convert the jurisdiction Under Article 32 into one Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (v) Though the Petitioner is entitled to the fundamental rights Under Article 19(1)(a), their exercise is subject to the limitations stipulated in Article 19(2). The content of the FIRs and the video clips would demonstrate that the restrictions Under Article 19(2) are attracted; (vi) Applying the sub judice doctrine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. 27. Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant in the second FIR submitted that: (i) The FIR which was lodged on 2 May 2020 pertains to a broadcast which took place on 29 April 2020; (ii) The maintainability of the Writ Petitions Under Article 32 is questioned; and (iii) The statements made by the Petitioner in the course of the programmes which were broadcast clearly implicate offences Under Sections 153A, 295A and cognate provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Analysis 28. The fundamental basis on which the jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked Under Article 32 is the filing of multiple FIRs and complaints in various States arising from the same cause of action. The cause of action was founded on a programme which was telecast on R Bharat on 21 April 2020. FIRs and criminal complaints were lodged against the Petitioner in the States of Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana and Jharkhand besides the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir. The law concerning multiple criminal proceedings on the same cause of action has been analyzed in a judgment of this Court in TT Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181 ("TT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n/statement can properly be treated as an FIR and entered in the station house diary again, as it would in effect be a second FIR and the same cannot be in conformity with the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court adverted to the need to strike a just balance between the fundamental rights of citizens Under Articles 19 and 21 and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognisable offence. Adverting to precedent, this Court held: 27. ...the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs whether before or after filing the final report Under Section 173(2) Code of Criminal Procedure. It would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 Code of Criminal Procedure, nay, a case of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given case. In our view a case of fresh investigation based on the second or successive FIRs, not being a counter-case, filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n regard to the same incident filed as a counter-complaint is prohibited under the Code then, in our opinion, such conclusion would lead to serious consequences. This will be clear from the hypothetical example given hereinbelow i.e. if in regard to a crime committed by the real Accused he takes the first opportunity to lodge a false complaint and the same is registered by the jurisdictional police then the aggrieved victim of such crime will be precluded from lodging a complaint giving his version of the incident in question, consequently he will be deprived of his legitimate right to bring the real Accused to book. This cannot be the purport of the Code. These principles were reiterated by a two judge Bench of this Court in Babubhai v. State of Gujarat (2010) 12 SCC 254. Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan observed: 21. In such a case the court has to examine the facts and circumstances giving rise to both the FIRs and the test of sameness is to be applied to find out whether both the FIRs relate to the same incident in respect of the same occurrence or are in regard to the incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction. If the answer is in the affirmative, the second FIR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Court to protect the fundamental rights of citizens. The exercise of journalistic freedom lies at the core of speech and expression protected by Article 19(1)(a). The Petitioner is a media journalist. The airing of views on television shows which he hosts is in the exercise of his fundamental right to speech and expression Under Article 19(1)(a). India's freedoms will rest safe as long as journalists can speak truth to power without being chilled by a threat of reprisal. The exercise of that fundamental right is not absolute and is answerable to the legal regime enacted with reference to the provisions of Article 19(2). But to allow a journalist to be subjected to multiple complaints and to the pursuit of remedies traversing multiple states and jurisdictions when faced with successive FIRs and complaints bearing the same foundation has a stifling effect on the exercise of that freedom. This will effectively destroy the freedom of the citizen to know of the affairs of governance in the nation and the right of the journalist to ensure an informed society. Our decisions hold that the right of a journalist Under Article 19(1)(a) is no higher than the right of the citizen to speak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a clear abuse of process and must be quashed. 35. The Petitioner has sought, for reasons outlined earlier, the transfer of the investigation to CBI. Before we elucidate the law on the subject, we must emphasize at the outset that the transfer of FIR 238 of 2020 from the Police Station Sadar, District Nagpur City to NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai was with the consent of the Petitioner and on his request. The reason why the investigation of the FIR was transferred to the NM Joshi Police Station in Mumbai was because that was the police station at which an earlier FIR had been lodged by the Petitioner in respect of the incident when he and his spouse were allegedly obstructed by two political activists on their way home at midnight on 23 April 2020. Having accepted the transfer of the investigation from Police Station Sadar, District Nagpur City to NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai, the Petitioner now seeks to question that very investigation by the Mumbai police. 36. The transfer of an investigation to the CBI is not a matter of routine. The precedents of this Court emphasise that this is an "extraordinary power" to be used "sparingly" and "in exceptional circumstance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king of the State agencies. Elaborating on this principle, this Court observed: 17. ...the Court could exercise its constitutional powers for transferring an investigation from the State investigating agency to any other independent investigating agency like CBI only in rare and exceptional cases. Such as where high officials of State authorities are involved, or the accusation itself is against the top officials of the investigating agency thereby allowing them to influence the investigation, and further that it is so necessary to do justice and to instill confidence in the investigation or where the investigation is prima facie found to be tainted/biased. The Court reiterated that an investigation may be transferred to the CBI only in "rare and exceptional cases". One factor that courts may consider is that such transfer is "imperative" to retain "public confidence in the impartial working of the State agencies." This observation must be read with the observations by the Constitution Bench in CPDR, West Bengal that mere allegations against the police do not constitute a sufficient basis to transfer the investigation. 37. In Romila Thapar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 753, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The basis on which the Petitioner seeks to achieve this is untenable. An Accused person does not have a choice in regard to the mode or manner in which the investigation should be carried out or in regard to the investigating agency. The line of interrogation either of the Petitioner or of the CFO cannot be controlled or dictated by the persons under investigation/interrogation. In P Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 SCC 24, Justice R Banumathi speaking for a two judge Bench of this Court held that: 66. ...there is a well-defined and demarcated function in the field of investigation and its subsequent adjudication. It is not the function of the court to monitor the investigation process so long as the investigation does not violate any provision of law. It must be left to the discretion of the investigating agency to decide the course of investigation. If the court is to interfere in each and every stage of the investigation and the interrogation of the Accused, it would affect the normal course of investigation. It must be left to the investigating agency to proceed in its own manner in interrogation of the Accused, nature of questions put to him and the manner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment to adequately probe the incident at Palghar is not valid. The investigation of the Palghar incident is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Mumbai police. 42. The Petitioner has then sought to rely upon the allegations which he has leveled against the CP, Mumbai. The Petitioner was interrogated on 27 April 2020. The allegations which he leveled against the CP, Mumbai were in the course of a television programme on 28 April 2020 ("Poochta hai Bharat") relayed on R Bharat at 1900 hrs. As we have noted earlier, this Court has, in CPDR, West Bengal held that no transfer of investigation can be ordered "merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police." Accordingly, we do not find that leveling such allegations would by and itself constitute a sufficient ground for the transfer of the investigation. 43. The interview given by the complainant to a representative of R Bharat does not furnish a valid basis in law for an inference that the investigation is tainted or as warranting a transfer of investigation to the CBI. The Government of Maharashtra has moved an application before this Court (affirmed by the DCP, Zone-3) seeking appropriate directio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld belie not just public confidence in the normal course of law but also render meaningless the extraordinary situations that warrant the exercise of the power to transfer the investigation. Having balanced and considered the material on record as well as the averments of and submissions urged by the Petitioner, we find that no case of the nature which falls within the ambit of the tests enunciated in the precedents of this Court has been established for the transfer of the investigation. 45. A final aspect requires elaboration. Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates prosecution for defamation. Sub-section (1) of Section 199 stipulates that no court shall take cognisance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Penal Code, 1860 except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. However, where such a person is under the age of eighteen years, or suffers from a mental illness or from sickness or infirmity rendering the person unable to make a complaint, or is a woman who, according to the local customs and manners, ought not to be compelled to appear in public, some other person may, with the leave of the court, make a complaint on his o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... envisages filing of a complaint in court. In case of criminal defamation neither can any FIR be filed nor can any direction be issued Under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure. The offence has its own gravity and hence, the responsibility of the Magistrate is more. In a way, it is immense at the time of issue of process. Issue of process, as has been held in Rajindra Nath Mahato v. T. Ganguly [Rajindra Nath Mahato v. T. Ganguly, (1972) 1 SCC 450 : 1972 SCC (Cri.) 206], is a matter of judicial determination and before issuing a process, the Magistrate has to examine the complainant. In Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha [Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 499 : 1993 SCC (Cri.) 149] it has been held that judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. The Court, though in a different context, has observed that there lies responsibility and duty on the Magistracy to find whether the Accused concerned should be legally responsible for the offence charged for. Only on satisfying that the law casts liability or creates offence against the juristic person or the persons impleaded, then only process would be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rticle 32, to quash the FIR. The Petitioner must be relegated to the pursuit of the remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, which we hereby do. The Petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy available before the High Court. We should not be construed as holding that a petition Under Article 32 is not maintainable. But when the High Court has the power Under Section 482, there is no reason to by-pass the procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure, we see no exceptional grounds or reasons to entertain this petition Under Article 32. There is a clear distinction between the maintainability of a petition and whether it should be entertained. In a situation like this, and for the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court would not like to entertain the petition Under Article 32 for the relief of quashing the FIR being investigated at the NM Joshi Police Station in Mumbai which can be considered by the High Court. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Petitioner must be relegated to avail of the remedies which are available under the Code of Criminal Procedure before the competent court including the High Court. 50. By the order of this Court dated 24 April 2020, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20 53. Amendments as proposed are allowed. The amendments shall be carried out within one week. (i) The prayer for transfer of the investigation to the CBI is rejected; (ii) The interim order of this Court dated 24 April 2020 by which FIR 238 of 2020 dated 22 April 2020 was transferred from the Police Station Sadar, District Nagpur City to NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai is confirmed. The FIR which has now been numbered as 164 of 2020 shall be investigated by the NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai; (iii) We decline to entertain the prayer for quashing FIR 164 of 2020 (earlier FIR 238 of 2020) Under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Petitioner would be at liberty to pursue such remedies as are available in law under the Code of Criminal Procedure before the competent forum. Any such application shall be considered on its own merits by the competent court; (iv) In view of the law laid down by this Court in Subramanian Swamy, we clarify that the above FIR does not cover the offence of criminal defamation Under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code which offence will not form the subject matter of the investigation. Hence, it is not necessary to address the prayer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) The quashing of the FIRs and complaints listed out in (v) above shall not amount to any expression of opinion by this Court on the merits of the FIR which is under investigation by the NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai; (vii) No other FIR or, as the case may be, complaint shall be initiated or pursued in any other forum in respect of the same cause of action emanating from the broadcast on 21 April 2020 by the Petitioner on R Bharat. Any other FIRs or complaints in respect of the same cause of action emanating from the broadcast on 21 April 2020, other than the FIRs or complaints referred to in (v) above are also held to be not maintainable; and (viii) Liberty to the complainants to move this Court for directions if it becomes necessary to do so. 2. Writ Petition (Crl.) Diary No. 11189 of 2020 54. The Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the Petitioner to pursue such remedies as are available in accordance with law. 3. (i) The protection granted to the Petitioner on 24 April 2020 in Writ Petition (Crl.) Diary No. 11006 of 2020 [WP (Crl.) No. 130 of 2020] against coercive steps is extended for a period of three weeks from the date of this judgment to enable the P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
