Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.MURALIDHAR
Swadheen Kumar Raut – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks quashing of fir related to covid broadcast. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented emphasize non-indictment of casual conversation. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. discussion on implications of media freedom and responsibility. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. analysis of the conversation's content regarding public health. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. court questions basis for claims of panic and alarm. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. assessment of conversation not constituting spread of panic. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 7. clarification on legal standards for quashing firs. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 8. final ruling affirms media protections and constitutional rights. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 9. case concludes with quashing of proceeding against petitioner. (Para 18) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The Petitioner, who is at presenting working as ‘Input Editor’ in Orissa Television Ltd. (OTV), Bhubaneswar has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972 (Cr.P.C.) seeking the quashing of the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.3245 of 2020 pending in the Court S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar against him under Sections 269, 270, 120-B and 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 52 of the Disaster Management Act , 2005.
3. An F
The court ruled that freedom of the press must prevail, and casual conversations aimed at public awareness about COVID cannot form the basis of criminal proceedings.
T.V. Anchor cannot be held liable to any offensive comments spontaneously made by a Panelist during a News Debate.
The court emphasized the importance of freedom of the press and the need to exercise inherent powers to prevent abuse of process of law.
Right to express one’s views is a protected and cherished right in our democracy. Merely because the point of view of Petitioner is extreme or harsh will not make it a hate speech as it is only expre....
It is clear as crystal that S.295 A does not stipulate everything to be penalised and any and every act would tantamount to insult or attempt to insult religion or religious beliefs of a class of cit....
Point of law: The extreme that the High Court thought that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, it could quash a First Information Report. The police had not even com....
(1) Quashing Petition – In glaring cases of deprivation of liberty, Apex Court has entertained petitions under Article 32 of Constitution. (2) Sedition – A citizen has right to say or write whatever ....
The court reaffirmed that an FIR can only be quashed in rare cases where allegations lack substance, emphasizing the duty to allow investigations into claims of criminal conduct.
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
