IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.
Dr. Sambit Patra, S/o Sh. Rabindra Nath Patra – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur (C.G.) – Respondent
Writ Petition (Cr.) No.251, 279 of 2020
Decided on : 12-4- 2021
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 – Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 499, 500, 501 , 505(1) and 153A - Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 66 – Offence of Defamation – Charged - Seeks quashment of FIR - Petitioner is a doctor by profession and presently, he is also discharging his duties as a National Spokesperson of a political party- M.P. Congress made a tweet levelling certain allegations against Government of India for mishandling outbreak of COVID-19 that has created havoc on the life and property of the people across globe and they have tweeted that if Congress Government would have been in power, then it would have handled situation far better than current Government and India would have been way ahead in dealing with the situation than other countries of the world - On petitioner through his social media platform, in reply to said tweet, wittily tweeted a reply depicting an image that if Congress party would have handled this pandemic situation, there would have been corruption on mass scale under different heads – Held, None of acts laid down in said provision pertains to act, as the present petitioner herein has only made a tweet from his tweeter handle and other allegations against petitioner is causing disharmony under Sections 153A & 505 of the IPC - There is no allegation in FIR/complaint, of violating any of clauses mentioned in Section 43 of IT Act - Ingredients of offence under Section 66 of IT Act against petitioner are totally missing, rather it is wrongly registered against petitioner and it deserves to be quashed in exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India - Accordingly, FIR No. registered against petitioner at Police Station, District for offences punishable under Sections 153A, 505 of IPC and Section 66 of IT Act is quashed - Writ petitions being W.P.(Cr.) Nos. are allowed
ORDER :
1. The petitioner herein in W.P.(Cr.)No.251/2020 seeks quashment of FIR No.192/2020 (Annexure P-2) registered in Police Station Bhilai Nagar, District Durg on 11-5-2020 at 7.29 p.m. for the offences punishable under Sections 499, 500, 501 & 505(1) of the IPC. Likewise, he also seeks quashment of FIR No.200/2020 (Annexure P-1) registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur on 11-5-2020 at 7.31 p.m. for the offences punishable under Sections 153A, 298 & 505(2) of the IPC.
2. The petitioner herein in W.P.(Cr.)No.279/2020 seeks quashment of FIR No.102/2020 (Annexure P-1) registered at Police Station Bhanupratappur, District Kanker on 24-5-2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 153A, 505 of the IPC and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
3. Since common question of fact and law is involved in both the writ petitions, they were clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
Brief facts: -
4. Quashing of aforesaid FIRs in the two writ petitions has been sought in the following factual score: -
W.P.(Cr.)No.251/2020
5. The petitioner is a doctor by profession and presently, he is also discharging his duties as a National Spokesperson of a political party (Bharatiya Janata Party). On 8-5-2020, M.P. Congress made a tweet levelling certain allegations against Government of India for mishandling the outbreak of COVID-19 that has created havoc on the life and property of the people across the globe and they have tweeted that if the Congress Government would have been in power, then it would have handled the situation far better than the current Government and India would have been way ahead in dealing with the situation than other countries of the world. On 9-5-2020, the petitioner through his social media platform, in reply to the said tweet, wittily tweeted a reply depicting an image that if Congress party would have handled this pandemic situation, there would have been corruption on mass scale under different heads. Copy of the tweet which has been filed and enclosed as Annexure P-3 states as under: -
:Œ-5000 djksM +ekLd ?kksVkyk
:Œ-7000 djksM +dksjksuk VsLV fdV ?kksVkyk
:Œ 20]000 djksM tokgj lSfuVkbtj ?kksVkyk
:Œ 26]000 djksM + jktho xka/kh ok;jl fjlpZ ?kksVkyk
6. Thereafter, on 10-5-2020, a complaint before the DCP, Shaheed Marg Police Station, New Delhi was filed against the petitioner for registration of offence under Sections 499 & 500 of the IPC for using derogatory remarks against Congress party and its leaders. The petitioner, while replying a tweet where the images of said complaint were shared by ZEE Rajasthan’s official tweeter handle, again tweeted vide Annexure P-4 as under: -
usg: us rks d'ehj leL;k dks Hkh tUe fn;k --u gksrs usg: u gksrk d'ehj leL;k
jktho xka/kh us rks cksQ+kslZ dh pksjh dh vkSj 3000 fl[kksa dk d+Ry Hkh djk;k tkvks vkSj dEIysu djks
7. In consequence of the above-stated two tweets made by the petitioner expressed through social media platform, two FIRs came to be registered; firstly FIR No.192/2020 (Annexure P-2) on 11-5-2020 at 7.29 p.m. for offences punishable under Sections 499, 500, 501 & 505(1) of the IPC by respondent No.7 Ankush Pillai claiming to be the District President of Indian National Congress for making derogatory remarks against its top leaders. Similarly, thereafter, immediately on the same day (11-5-2020) at 7.31 p.m. another FIR No.200/2020 (Annexure P-1) was also lodged against the petitioner by respondent No.4 Purna Chandra Padhi at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur for the offences punishable under Sections 153A, 298 & 505(2) of the IPC. Pursuant to that, wheels of investigation started running and by notice dated 2-6-2020 (Annexure P-5) issued under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur,
Abdul Rehman Mahomed Yusuf v. Mahomed Haji Ahmad Agbotwala and another
Amish Devgan v. Union of India and others
Ahmad Ali Quraishi and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India and others
Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab
Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P.
Balasaheb Keshav Thackeray v. State of Maharashtra and others
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra and others
G. Narasimhan, G. Kasturi and K. Gopalan v. T.V. Chokkappa
Google India Private Limited v. Visaka Industries
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar
Keshav Lal Thakur v. State of Bihar
Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra and another
Mohd. Abdulla Khan V. Prakash K.
Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others
Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India and others
Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha
Rajindra Nath Mahato v. T. Ganguly
S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal and another
Shalibhadra Shah and others v. Swami Krishna Bharati and others
State of Punjab v. Raj Singh and another
State of Bihar and another etc. etc. v. Shri P.P. Sharma and another etc. etc.
State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Ministry of Law and others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.