Punjab and Haryana High Court: While deciding the instant petition against the FIR wherein allegations of violation of several penal offences were made against the petitioner, Anoop Chitkara, J., quashed the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings saying that the disruption of the investigation should not constitute the stifling of investigation.
On 12-04-2022, FIR was registered under Sections 153, 153-A, 505, 505(2), 116, 143, 147, 323, 341, 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 and Section 125 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. The petitioner contends that his fundamental right to speech should be preserved and the abuse of process of law should be prevented. The petitioner says that even if the allegations are taken to be true, it does not constitute violation of any penal offences. Thus, prayed for quashing the FIR.
Facts:
On 16-02-2022 and on 17-02-2022, the petitioner, to satiate his personal enmity and hatred, gave a proactive video interview to ANI and other news channels, making baseless imputations regarding involvement of Aam Adami Party’s (‘AAP’) national convener Mr. Arvind Kejriwal, with certain nefarious and anti-social elements. The same was widely circulated in the media and on social media which promoted hatred, animosity, and feelings of hostility in the State of Punjab, against the members of AAP as it targeted every leader, member, and supporter of AAP, with nefarious and disruptive elements.
On 15-04-2022, the investigation was taken over by a Special Investigation Team (‘SIT’). After preliminary investigations, SIT issued notice against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner approached the Court to quash the FIR and to impose a stay on the proceeding during the pendency of the petition. On 2-05-2022, the Court stayed further proceedings and the arrest of the petitioner.
Arguments:
The counsel for the complainant contended that the timing and nature of the proactive statements were purposefully and strategically aimed to spread a communal narrative to create unrest and instability across Punjab during the elections to the State Legislative Assembly.
The counsel further contended that such speech subjected AAP supporters to hatred, hostility, distrust, and vengeful violence, significantly rupturing the peaceful religious fabric of Punjab.
The counsel for the petitioner contended that the FIR is just a misuse of the State’s machinery. He further stated that it is a way to take vengeance due to the hostile relation between the complainant and the petitioner and as the petitioner openly refused to obey the AAP party ways.
The counsel for the State, Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate, contended that the stay order was imposed during the initial stages of investigation and if now, the Court proceeds to quash the FIR, it would amount to not letting the police fulfill its statutory obligation to investigate a crime of serious ramifications.
The counsel for the State further contended that a similar incident occurred on 18-02-2022 in another Vidhan Sabha constituency which was in repercussion of this incident. Hence, the offence, according to the complaint, is a prima facie offence and does not come under the purview of exceptional cases. Hence, the Court cannot use its inherent powers.
Observation and Analysis:
The Court said that there is no link between the incident of 18-02-2022 and the present case as the incident was not mentioned in the complaint and it is legally impermissible to link both as the incident occurred on 18-02-2022.
The Court further said that parties are not disputing about the factum of the interview and its correctness, hence, the only relevant issue that remained according to the Court was whether the interview of the petitioner given on 16-02-2022, led to the incident of 12-04-2022 to which the Court said that “the disruption of the investigation should not constitute the stifling of investigation“.
The Court further said that the penal provisions under which the petitioner has been booked are not relevant and cannot be made out against him.
The Court held that it would not allow to expand the scope of the complaint to connect the incidents by fishing the incidents as there is no prima facie material that connects both the incidents.
Hence, the Court quashed the FIR and all the subsequent proceedings against the petitioner.
[Kumar Vishwas v. State of Punjab, 2022 SCC OnLine P&H 2637, decided on 12-10-2022]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Mr. Randeep Rai, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Mayank Aggarwal, Advocate
Ms. Rubina Virmani, Advocates
For the State: Mr. Puneet Bali, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Prashant Manchanda, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab
Mr. Ferry Sofat, Addnl. Advocate General Punjab
Mr. H.S. Sitta, Dy. Advocate General, Punjab,
Mr. Vaibhav, Advocate for the State of Punjab
For the Complainant: Mr. Surjeet Bhadu, Advocate
*Kriti Kumar, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
