Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
Vishal Dadlani – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and another – Respondent
CRM-M No. 32226, 32227 of 2016 (O&M)
Decided on : 29-04-2019
CRIMINAL - QUASHING OF FIR - SECTION 295-A, 153-A AND 509 IPC - FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION - REASONABLE RESTRICTION - INTENTION TO OUTRAGE RELIGIOUS FEELINGS - MENS REA - PUBLIC ORDER - SECTION 482 CR.P.C. - INHERENT POWERS OF HIGH COURT - TWITTER COMMENTS ON JAIN MUNI'S SPEECH IN HARYANA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY - APOLOGY TENDERED AND ACCEPTED - NO COMPLAINT BY ANY FOLLOWER OF JAIN MUNI - INVESTIGATION PENDING FOR 2½ YEARS - NO SANCTION UNDER SECTION 196 CR.P.C. - PETITIONS ALLOWED SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF COSTS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, Vishal Dadlani and Tehseen Poonawala, tweeted comments criticizing Jain Muni Tarun Sagar's speech in the Haryana Legislative Assembly and comparing him to a semi-nude woman. An FIR was registered against them under Sections 295-A, 153-A, and 509 IPC, and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act was added later. The petitioners filed petitions to quash the FIR, arguing that their tweets were protected by freedom of speech and expression and that no offense was made out. The State and the complainant opposed the petitions, arguing that the tweets were offensive and intended to outrage religious feelings.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the tweets did not make out an offense under Sections 295-A, 153-A, or 509 IPC. It found that there was no intention to outrage religious feelings or promote enmity between different groups, and that the tweets were protected by freedom of speech and expression. The Court also noted that the complainant was not a follower of Jainism and that no follower of Jain Muni had come forward to support the FIR. The Court further held that the investigation had been pending for 2½ years without any progress, and that no sanction had been granted under Section 196 Cr.P.C. for prosecution under Section 295-A IPC. The Court allowed the petitions subject to the petitioners paying costs of Rs. 10 lacs each.
Issues: Whether the tweets made by the petitioners were protected by freedom of speech and expression. Whether the tweets made out an offense under Sections 295-A, 153-A, or 509 IPC. Whether the investigation into the FIR was being conducted properly.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the tweets were protected by freedom of speech and expression, and that they did not make out an offense under Sections 295-A, 153-A, or 509 IPC. The Court found that there was no intention to outrage religious feelings or promote enmity between different groups, and that the tweets were protected by freedom of speech and expression. The Court also noted that the complainant was not a follower of Jainism and that no follower of Jain Muni had come forward to support the FIR. The Court further held that the investigation had been pending for 2½ years without any progress, and that no sanction had been granted under Section 196 Cr.P.C. for prosecution under Section 295-A IPC.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petitions subject to the petitioners paying costs of Rs. 10 lacs each.
JUDGMENT :
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN J.
1. Vide this common judgment, I intend to dispose of both the aforesaid petitions i.e. CRM-M Nos.32227 and 32226 of 2016, as common questions of law and facts are involved for adjudication.
2. The petitioners namely Vishal Dadlani (in CRM-M No.32227 of 2016) and Tehseen Poonawala (in CRM-M No.32226 of 2016), are arrayed as an accused in the impugned FIR No.0310 dated 28.08.2016 (Annexure P1) registered under Sections 295-A, 153-A and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') (Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 added later) at Police station Ambala Cantt. Haryana, and they are praying for quashing of the said FIR and all other proceedings arising therefrom.
3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/complainant namely Puneet Arora, got the aforesaid FIR registered. For a reference, the contents of FIR No.0310 dated 28.08.2016 is reproduced as under:-
“Sir, as you are aware that the State of Haryana is celebrating the Golden Jubilee year of its establishment. For this reason on 26.08.2016, the session of the Vidhan Sabha commenced with the sermons of the renowned Jain Saint and Tapasvi, Sh. Tarunv Sagar Ji. Indian culture has always had respect towards the saint fraternity. But Vishal Dadlani and Tehseen Poonawalla have intentionally used the internet and through that twitter account broadcasted tweets on 27.08.2016. The words used in them express disrespect, criticism and have spread religious discontent/enmity towards the Jain community and the Saint and Tapasvi Sh. Tarun Sagar. I am visibly hurt and aggrieved. My belief and religious feelings have been hurt. Tehseen Poonawalla has gone a step further. He has posted a picture of a half clad woman along site the picture of respected Sh. Tarun Sagar Ji. The society is taking about protecting and educating the girl child. By posting the picture of a half clad woman and by comparing it to the Jain monk is great disrespect towards both the female fraternity and the Jain Monk. The session of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha was in presence of the respected Governor, respected Speaker, respected Chief Minister and all Elected Representatives of the State of Haryana. By the use of such words by Vishal Dadlani (@ Vishal Dadlani) and Tehseen Poonawalla (@ Tehseenp) have intentionally disrespected all the above respected persons and 2.5 crore residing in Haryana. This is straight away, through the medium of the internet, a matter of spreading religious discontent/enmity, hurting of belief and religious sentiments, disrespect of Jain Saint who belongs to a minority community, the entire female fratemity, 2.5 cr residents of Haryana, the respected Governor, respected Speaker, respected Chief Minister and Elected Representative, the matter concerns disrespect towards all. Hence, you are requested to initiate the relevant and strict legal proceedings.
Complainant Sd/- Puneet Arora.”
4. Counsel for the petitioner – Vishal Dadlani (in CRM-M No.32227 of 2016) has submitted that the petitioner is a prominent Singer and Composer, who has composed and written many songs in Hindi Film Industry, apart from performing various shows and acting as a Judge in television programmes.
5. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that on 26.08.2016, the Government of Haryana extended an invitation to one Jain Monk (Muni) Sh. Tarun Sagar, to deliver a speech in the Haryana State Legislative Assembly at Chandigarh, on the social and political issues. On the next day i.e. 27.08.2016, the petitioner posted a series of message on a social media platform i.e. 'Twitter', questioning the wisdom of the Haryana State Legislative Assembly in inviting a religious leader to address a political form. The tweets, which were made by the petitioner are reproduced as under:-
“If you voted for these people, YOU are responsible for this absurd nonsense. No #AchcheDin, just no #KachcheDin”. This was posted with a photograph captioned “MONKERY OF DEMOCRACY.”
People actually
AI
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
