Point of Law : The word 'Promote' does not imply mere describing and narrating a fact, or giving opinion, criticising the point of view or actions of another person.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. Pragya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State. None appeared for the informant despite sufficient service.

2. The instant petition has been filed for quashing the First Information Report (here-in-after referred as FIR) dated 31.01.2021 in Case Crime No. 27 of 2021, under Section 153-B and 505 (2) of Indian Penal Code (here-in-after referred as IPC), registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District-Rampur alongwith consequential reliefs.

3. Petitioner no. 1 is the founding editor of online news publication ‘The Wire’ and the petitioner no. 2 is the reporter of the said online news publication. The farmers were protesting against three farmer laws enacted in 2020. As a mark of protest they marched in Delhi on 26.01.2021 and in an incident near ‘ITO’ New Delhi, a young man named Navreet Singh Dibdiba hailing from district Rampur, U.P. suffered serious injuries and succumbed to death. The State version is that death was caused due to an accident involving his tractor whereas some of the eye witnesses and the victims primarily claim that it was due to bullet injury. ‘The Wire’ covered this incident in its report dated 30.01.2021 titled “Autopsy Doctor Told Me He’d Seen the Bullet Injury but Can Do Nothing as His Hands are Tied” authored by the petitioner no. 2 and shared it on Twitter handle at 10.08 A.M. A clarificatory statement was issued by the three doctors who carried out the postmortem denying that they had spoken to the media or any other person or they made any such statement. The said news was also published by the petitioner no. 1 on 30.01.2021 at 04:46 P.M. after it was issued by Rampur Police at 4.39 P.M. The FIR was lodged on 31.01.2021 at 00.59 bearing FIR No. 27 of 2021 under Sections 153-B and 505 (2) IPC against the petitioner no. 1 on the basis of a complaint by one Sanju Turaiha/ respondent no. 3 alleging that the petitioner no. 1 by way of the aforementioned tweet, sought to provocate the masses, spread riot, tarnish the image of medical officers by proving wrong to the panel of Medical Officers and disturb law and order and though the doctors who performed the postmortem denied that they have told the victim’s family that the cause of the death was bullet injuries but the petitioner no. 1 did not delete the tweet. The petitioners approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the three FIRs. Including the FIR No. 27 of 2021 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 71 of 2021. The Hon’ble Supreme Court by means of the order dated 08.09.2021 permitted the petition to be withdrawn by the petitioner no. 2 and granted protection from any coercive action for a period of two months. Consequently, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have wrongly and falsely been implicated in the case. The allegations made in the FIR does not disclose the commissioning of any offence under Section 153-B and 505 (2) IPC. The petitioners had only published the statement of the parents of the deceased and the contradictions of the doctors was also published/uploaded at the earliest after its release. Therefore even if the same was not deleted it does not constitute any offence. There was no threat of riots and in fact there was no violence or riot on account of the alleged publication. She had further submitted that the fair criticism is permissible under law. She had also submitted that the grand father of the deceased has moved the Delhi High Court praying for a Court monitored probe into the death of his grandson, where the High Court has issued the notices and the Delhi High Court is monitoring the investigation. Therefore the FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law and curtailment of right to freedom of speech. Therefore the impugned FIR is not sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be qua