Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
RAJNESH OSWAL, J.
Rajinder Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of J&K - Respondent
CRMC No. 320 of 2018 (O&M)
Decided On : 20-04-2023
FIR Quashing - IT Act - 501, 509 RPC, 66, 67 IT Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the applicability of section 501 RPC, the non-cognizable nature of the offence, and the investigation of non-cognizable offences arising from the same facts. It also considered the provisions of section 509 RPC and the cognizance of offences under the IT Act 2000. The court referred to legal precedents to establish that the bar prescribed by section 198 Criminal Procedure Code comes into play at the time of taking cognizance of the offence and not before that.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the quashing of the FIR registered against him under sections 501 and 509 RPC and Sections 66 and 67 of IT Act 2000. The petitioner was accused of using profane language against the then Chief Minister at a public gathering, which was video-graphed and made viral on social media.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the language used by the petitioner was vulgar and abusive, and the hate speeches had no place in a civilized society. It rejected the petitioner's contention that no FIR under section 501 RPC could have been registered against him and that no offence under section 509 RPC was made out.
Issues: The issues revolved around the registration of FIR under section 501 RPC, the applicability of section 509 RPC, and the investigation of offences under the IT Act 2000.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the bar prescribed by section 198 Criminal Procedure Code comes into play at the time of taking cognizance of the offence and not before that. It also emphasized that the court cannot conduct a mini trial while examining the validity of the registration of FIR.
Final Decision: The petition was found to be without merit and dismissed. The Investigating Officer was directed to conclude the investigation expeditiously, preferably within three months.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner through the instant petition has sought the quashing of the FIR No. 0083 dated 21.05.2018 under sections 501 and 509 RPC and Sections 66 and 67 of IT Act 2000 registered with Police Station, Hiranagar against him and unknown person on the ground that no FIR for commission of offence under section 501 RPC can be registered against the petitioner as the cognizance of offence under section 501 RPC can only be taken by the Court upon the complaint made by a person aggrieved by such an offence. It is also stated that no offence under section 509 RPC is made out against the petitioner. Besides, it has also been stated that section 66 of IT Act pertains to computer related offences and no computer related offence has been committed by the petitioner as per the FIR impugned. It is further stated that even no offence under section 67 of IT Act is made out against the petitioner.
2. Reply stands filed by the respondents, wherein it is stated that on 21.03.2018 while addressing large gathering of people at a public place i.e. at Mela More Hiranagar, the petitioner used extremely profane, vulgar, filthy and abusive language against the then Chief Minister. He brazenly and shamelessly indulged in rhythmic singing of profane words against xxxxxx (Name not disclosed) like kutti hai hai, bari payari kutti hai hai, kan fatti kuti, bari bahan chod kutti hai etc. and instigated the general public. These utterances made in public are extremely provocative and reprehensibly anti-social and against the civilized norms of a society. This action of the petitioner was also got video graphed by his cohorts to put it on social media and said video clippings got transmitted through out the erstwhile State of J&K. As the petitioner and his cohorts prepared the video and made it viral on the social media, therefore, he has committed offences under sections 501 and 509 RPC and Sections 66 & 67 of IT Act 2000. Accordingly, the FIR impugned was registered against him.
3. Mr. Jagpaul Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that no FIR under section 501 RPC could have been registered against the petitioner as cognizance of the said offence can be taken only by the court after the complaint is filed by the aggrieved person. He further argued that even no offence under section 509 is made out against the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Dewakar Sharma, learned Dy. AG argued that in respect of voice samples of the petitioner, FSL report has been obtained from the Central Forensic Laboratory and as per the report, the questioned sample matched with the voice of the petitioner and the image of the person in the video was also of the petitioner.
5. Heard and perused the record including the Case Diary.
6. A perusal of the FIR reveals that on 21.05.2018, the petitioner was addressing a rally at Mela More, Hiranagar on loudspeaker. He used filthy language against the Ex-Chief Minister of the State and used derogatory words in a shameful manner. One unknown person made the video and as such, the FIR in reference was registered against the petitioner and one unknown person. It is beyond doubt that the language used by the petitioner is vulgar and abusive and these hate speeches have no place in a civilized society, particularly against a woman.
7. Now, it is to be seen as to whether the FIR in question can be quashed on the ground that as per section 198 Cr.P.C., the cognizance of an offence under section 501 RPC cannot be taken otherwise than on the complaint made by the person so aggrieved and further as to whether the utterances of the petitioner do not fall within the purview of section 509 RPC. The offence under section 501 RPC is non-cognisable and registration of FIR is not permissible. The offences under section 509 RPC and 66, 67 of IT Act of 2000 are cognisable. The Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Pravin Chandra Mody v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 1185, while referring to the case of Ram Krishna Dalmia (AIR 1
The bar prescribed by section 198 Criminal Procedure Code comes into play at the time of taking cognizance of the offence and not before that.
The registration of FIR under Section 188 IPC without a written complaint from the concerned public servant is impermissible and renders the proceedings void ab initio.
The Court emphasized the need for a complaint from the public servant concerned or his superior for registering a FIR under Section 188 IPC and interpreted the elements of incitement under Section 50....
The court established that for offences under Section 188 IPC, a written complaint from the concerned public servant is mandatory, and without it, the FIRs cannot be maintained. Furthermore, the cour....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
