TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (6) TMI 766
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s be filed before the next date. Crl. M.A. No.7411/2020 (exemption) 4. Exemption is granted, subject to just exceptions and subject to the petitioner completing all requirements of filing typed/clear/ original/certified copies of annexures and documents, attested affidavits and court fees within 10 days of physical reopening of courts. 5. Application stands disposed of. W.P.(CRL) No. 895/2020 6. The petitioner, who is a known journalist and television anchor, has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) praying for quashing of FIR No.74/2020 dated 04.06.2020 registered under sections 290/505/505(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) at PS : Crime Branch, New Delhi. The petitioner has further prayed for an investigation into the registration of the FIR by respondent No.1/State, as also for compensation for violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights. 7. As recorded above, 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 peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... spreading rumours and misinformation about the sensitive issue of the Delhi riots; and that his comments/remarks in the webcast contain communal overtones, which during the current COVID crisis, is causing public disaffection, which shall cause hatred and ill-will between different communities as under : (Extract from the record) 18. As is evident from the record, while the date of commission of the alleged offence is 11.03.2020, the date and time of receipt of information for registration of FIR is indicated as 04.06.2020 as 22:48 hours. 19. Of the offences mentioned in the FIR, the offence under section 290 IPC i.e. punishment for public nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for, is punishable with fine of upto Rs. 200/- and is noncognizable and bailable ; the offence under section 505 IPC i.e. statements conducing to public mischief, of which section 505(1)(c) appears to be what is alleged, is punishable with imprisonment for upto 03 years or fine or both, and is non-cognizable and (yet) nonbailable; and the offence under section 505(2) IPC i.e. statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes, is punishable with imprisonment for upto 03 y....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... intent as aforesaid." 21. Accordingly, the belief on the part of a person making a statement that such statement is true, good faith and lack of intent, carve-out an exception to offences under section 505 IPC. 22. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits:- (a) That first and foremost, the only material furnished on the basis of which the FIR has been registered is a recording of the webcast dated 11.03.2020, of which the allegedly offending part starts at 08:30 minutes of the recording; (b) That while it has been alleged that the petitioner has said that high governmental functionaries, as mentioned in the webcast, were responsible for and instigated the riots that occurred in North-East Delhi, a bare perusal of the transcript of the recording, which has been filed along with the petition, shows that no such comment or allegation was at all made. All that was said in the webcast is that the functionaries did not visit the riot-affected areas and were pre-occupied with the on-going State visit of a foreign dignitary. Attention in this regard is drawn to the transcript of the webcast at 09:17 minutes and 11:55 minutes of the timelin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 although by order dated 09.06.2020 made in case No. 622/2020 being an anticipatory bail application, the petitioner has been granted interim protection by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, nevertheless even continuance of investigation would amount to serious harassment of the petitioner who would be repeatedly called to the police station. Senior counsel further contends that the entire case rests on the contents of the CD and no further investigation is in any case required. 25. Mr. Piyush Singhal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1/State submits that investigation in the matter is at a nascent stage; that notice has only been issued to YouTube; and that the petitioner has so far not even been called for investigation. 26. Appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2/complainant, Mr. Anil Soni, Mr. Ajay Digpaul and Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, learned counsel have argued against grant of any interim relief to the petitioner on the following basis: (a) That the ingr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 Supreme Court observed that : "7. The second limb of Mr Mookerjee's argument is that in any event the High Court could not take upon itself the task of assessing or appreciating the weight of material on the record in order to find whether any charges could be legitimately framed against the respondents. So long as there is some material on the record to connect the accused with the crime, says the learned counsel, the case must go on and the High Court has no jurisdiction to put a precipitate or premature end to the proceedings on the belief that the prosecution is not likely to succeed. This, in our opinion, is too broad a proposition to accept. Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 2 of 1974, provides that: * * * * * * "Section 482 of the New Code, which corresponds to Section 561-A of the Code of 1898, provides that: "Nothing in this Code shall be deeme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y 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 they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) * * * * * * (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) * * * * * * (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt 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 otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto." * * * * * * "8. In dealing with the last case, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in qu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 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. While considering section 153A and also referring to section 505(2) IPC in Manzar Sayeed Khan vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2007) 5 SCC 1 the Supreme 6 Court has opined that it is the gravamen of the offence of creating enmity between different communities, that there should be reference to a second community ; and the offence cannot proceed on the basis of an allegation where only one community has been mentioned : "16. Section 153-A IPC, as extracted hereinabove, covers a case where a person by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cept 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 complainant warranting registration of an FIR as per Lalita Kumari (cf. para 120.2 of the judgment, supra), Muniswamy (cf. para 7 of the judgment, supra), Bhajan Lal (cf. para 102(2) of the judgment, supra) and Devendrappa (cf. para 8 of judgment, supra) ; (iv) That naming the three persons in the webcast and questioning the police inaction against those persons, is based on what was recorded in the Division Bench order dated 26.02.2020 in W.P.(Crl.) No.565/2020; and therefore appears to fall within the exception to section 505, at least on first blush; (v) That there is no allegation that any adverse consequences, in terms of enmity, hatred or ill-will, muchless any violence or breach of peace, occurred as a consequence of the web....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ountry and he is only involved in Politics of political Crisis (Sarakar Giarana). The said allegations are absoulutely incorrect and far from any truth and the same time the allegations are vaseless. Apart thereof Mr. Vinod Dua had conducted Mis-reporting over the Delhi Riot and stated that the Central Governnment had done nothing to stop the violence and had put his word in the mouth of Mr. Kapil Mishra (BJP Leader). Succinctly speaking Mr. Vinod Dua "reported tha BJP was solely responsible for Delhi Riot and Prime Minister & Home Minister is directly responsible for that. He has make fun of the Prime Minister by using derogatory word as a scaremonger. 6. The said report is Document 2 7887 Contrary to record and thus absolutely false & misleading. The journalist Mr. Vinod Dua has blatantly lied or has misinformed his viewers about the series of events. There are also a series ofd instances where bizarre and unfounded allegations have been made against the government, police and Political Leaders. The reporting's ful of false content misleading context, imposter & manipulated contents and the link of the video is share herewith https://www.youtube....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ाठशाहीन बाग जैसे protest चल रहे हैं। अब इसको हिंसा से कैसे जोड़ा जाये, इसको communal फिरà¥à¤•à¤¾à¤ªà¤°à¤¸à¥à¤¥à¥€ का कैसे दिया जाये ये काम बखूबी कर दिखाया नारà¥à¤¥-ईसà¥à¤Ÿ दिलà¥à¤²à¥€ में हिंसा करके और इसको दंगो का नाम दिया गया, जब दंगे होते है तो सीधा-साधा ये कहा गया à¤....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....®à¤¨à¤¾ पड़ा कà¥à¤¯à¥‹à¤‚, कà¥à¤¯à¥‚ंकि गृह मंतà¥à¤°à¥€ ने अपना काम नहीं किया। उधर मीनाकà¥à¤·à¥€ लेखी à¤à¤• MP हैं वो कह रही है 'कà¥à¤¯à¤¾ ये गृह मंतà¥à¤°à¥€ का काम है कि वो पà¥à¤²à¤¿à¤¸ सà¥à¤Ÿà¥‡à¤¶à¤¨ में जाकर बैठे। बिलकà¥à¤² है, जब सड़क पर उतरना होता है जब दगे हो रहे हो पà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤¨à¥‡ नेताओं के सà¤....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....¾à¤— ठाकà¥à¤° को देश के गदà¥à¤¦à¤¾à¤°à¥‹à¤‚ को गोली मारो सालों को उनको à¤à¤¸à¤¾ नारा लगाने कà¥à¤¯à¥‹à¤‚ दिया गया, अगर लगाया à¤à¥€ उनके खिलाफ कारà¥à¤¯à¤µà¤¾à¤¹à¥€ कà¥à¤¯à¥‹à¤‚ नहीं पूरी हà¥à¤ˆ, पà¥à¤°à¤µà¥‡à¤¶ वरà¥à¤®à¤¾ के खिलाफ कारà¥à¤¯à¤µà¤¾à¤¹à¥€ कà¥à¤¯à¥‹à¤‚ नहीं हà¥à¤ˆà¥¤ उन पर कोई कारà¥à¤¯à¤µà¤¾à¤¹à¥€ नहीं हà¥à¤ˆ बलà¥à¤•à¤¿ à¤....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ती है वह पà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤¨à¥‡ police commissioners में हमने देखी थी, आलोक वरà¥à¤®à¤¾ जैसे निखिल कà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤° जैसे या कà¥à¤› और à¤à¥€ उससे पहले à¤à¥€ अब नहीं, उस पर पीठठोकना कि हमने 36 घंटे में काबू पा लिया यह शरà¥à¤® की बात है लिहाजा, इसलिठमें ये कह रहा हूठअधीर रंजन चौधरी जी कह रहे थे उनà¥à¤¹....