Congress’ FIRs in opposition to Sambit Patra and Tajinder Bagga quashed by Chhattisgarh HC

Yesterday, the Chhattisgarh High Court struck down varied First Information Reports (FIRs) filed in opposition to BJP National Spokesperson Dr Sambit Patra and BJP Delhi Spokesperson Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga which have been lodged in May 2020. Two FIRs have been lodged in opposition to Dr Patra in Raipur and Durg, whereas one case was filed in Kanker in opposition to Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga, Dr Patra’s lawyer Sharad Mishra mentioned.
Two FIRs lodged in opposition to Dr Patra have been quashed, one below Sections 499, 500, 501 & 505(1) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and one other below Sections 298, 153A & 505(2) of the IPC. These FIRs have been lodged in opposition to Dr Patra for making allegedly defamatory remarks in opposition to the Congress get together and its management, together with former PMs Jawaharlal Nehru and Rajiv Gandhi.
Similarly, an FIR filed in opposition to Tajinder Bagga below Sections 153A, 505 of the IPC and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was disallowed by the Hon’ble High Court. The FIR in opposition to Tajindar Bagga was filed in relation to a grievance about Bagga for merely retweeting Dr. Patra’s Twitter put up about former PMs Jawaharlal Nehru and Rajiv Gandhi.
Non-cognizable offence
In the judgement, Justice Sanjay Ok. Agrawal noticed that as far sections regarding defamation are involved, the police should not have the facility to research non-cognizable offences with out the permission of a reliable Magistrate. A non-cognizable offence is often a minor offence, talked about within the First Schedule of the IPC, for which the accused can’t be arrested with out a warrant.
The judgment additional elucidated upon the illegality of a police investigation right into a non-cognizable offense with out the competent Magistrate’s permission. It states that any subsequent permission granted at a later date can not repair the illegality of the police officer initiating the investigation with out permission of the Magistrate with jurisdiction.
About Section 505 of the IPC which offers with statements conducive to public mischief, the Hon’ble Court noticed that making allegations in opposition to leaders of political events, even when they turn into incorrect or unfaithful, doesn’t represent an offence below Section 505(1).
The Hon’ble Court additionally refused to contemplate the complainant, who’s neither a member of the family nor close to relative of both PM Nehru or Rajiv Gandhi, as an “aggrieved person” below Section 199(1) of the Criminal Code of Procedure.
The Court additionally noticed that Section 298 of the IPC applies solely in instances the place oral phrases are uttered in presence of the individual, and never in instances of written articles or social media posts.
“There is also no allegation that the petitioner wounded the religious feelings of any person including respondent No.4. As such, none of the ingredients for constituting the offence under Section 298 of the IPC is available against the petitioner. Therefore, taking the contents of the FIR as it is so far as the offence under Section 298 of the IPC is concerned, offence under Section 298 is not made out against the petitioner.”, the Chattisgarh HC mentioned.
The Court additionally quashed the FIR filed below Sections 153A & 505(2) of the IPC, stating, “it is not the allegation that in the said tweet, two different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities are involved and as such there is no two different religious groups which is sine qua non for attracting offences under Sections 153A & 505(2) of the IPC and one of the essential and basic ingredients of the above-stated offences of involvement of two different groups is totally missing.”
The quashed complaints
On May 11, 2020, the Chhattisgarh Police had registered a case in opposition to Dr. Sambit Patra for supposedly selling animosity between totally different teams and hurting ‘religious sentiments’ for his tweets in opposition to Jawaharlal Nehru and Rajiv Gandhi. The FIR was lodged in opposition to Patra on the grievance of Chattisgarh Youth Congress President, Purna Chandra Padhi on the Civil Lines Police Station of Raipur below Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 153A (selling enmity between totally different teams), 505(2) (public mischief) and 298 (uttering phrases to wound non secular emotions).
According to the complainant, the tweets by Dr Patra may scare and provoke members of the Sikh group which can, in flip, disturb public tranquillity. He had additionally argued that tweeting such issues was “prejudicial to the maintenance of peace and harmony between religious groups”. Refuting claims of the complicity of the 2 former Prime Ministers in both riots or corruption, Padhi had mentioned that they weren’t convicted by any Court of regulation and as such the allegations levelled in opposition to them by Dr Patra have been baseless.