2. The appellant herein calls into question the order dated 20th July, 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of High Court of Uttarakhand whereby Criminal Writ Petition No. 881 of 2020 preferred by the appellant for assailing FIR No. 31 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 153A, 500, 501, 504, 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter being referred to as the ‘IPC’) at P.S. Muni Ki Reti, District Tehri Garhwal was dismissed.
Facts
4. The respondent No.3 Shri Rajeev Savara filed a complaint to the SHO P.S. Muni Ki Reti, District Tehri Garhwal alleging inter alia that he owns land admeasuring 1.196 hectares(approximately 15.94 bighas) situated on National Highway No. 7 at village Singthali, Tehsil Narendra Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal, Uttarakhand. He had formed a trust by the name, Savara Foundation of which he is the founder and also Chairman of the Board of Trustees. He claimed to be an internationally recognised domain expert of pre-modern, modern visual and decorative Indian arts, having served on the advisory boards of various art galleries and museums.
5. The complainant had planned a foundation stone laying ceremony of ‘Matra Ashraya-A collection museum’ on the said land/property to be done by the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Uttarakhand, namely, Mr. Trivendra Singh Rawat, in the presence of Juna Peethadheeshwar Acharya Mahamandaleshwar Swami Avdheshanand Ji Maharaj. The event was scheduled on 20th March, 2020.
Allegation in the e-newspaper was that the complainant occupied the government land
6. It was alleged in the complaint that in order to blackmail the complainant, the accused named in the aforesaid FIR, acting in collusion, got published a news article in the e-newspaper ‘Parvatjan’, edition dated 17th March, 2020 wherein it was portrayed that the land on which the foundation stone was proposed to be laid was Government land which had been unlawfully occupied/encroached upon by the complainant. The complainant alleged that even his invitation was published in the defamatory news article. It was further alleged that the imputations were made in the news article with the intent and knowledge that the same would irreparably tarnish the reputation of the complainant and his standing in the public domain.
Since it was the lawfully owned land accused caused serious damage to the reputation of the complainant
7. The complainant asserted that the sole objective of the publication was to incite breach of peace. The article was published without undertaking proper fact-finding exercise which as per the complainant, would have conclusively and indisputably established that he had not encroached upon Government land and that the plot in question was lawfully owned and occupied by the complainant. In this manner, the accused caused serious damage to the goodwill, reputation and standing of the complainant in the society. As per the complainant, the act of publication of the mischievous and malicious news article by the accused invited invocation of the offences punishable under Sections 153A, 500, 501, 504 read with Sections 34 and 120B IPC.
FIR was registered
8. Based on the said complaint, FIR No. 31 of 2020 came to be registered at P.S. Muni Ki Reti, District Tehri Garhwal, Uttarakhand for the above offences.
Accused filed writ petition stating that E-newspaper publication was based on a Facebook post
9. The appellant filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 881 of 2020 in the High Court of Uttarakhand for challenging the said FIR claiming to be completely innocent and taking a plea that the allegations made in the FIR did not disclose commission of any cognizable offence. It was averred in the petition that the news article which had been published in the e-newspaper Parvatjan of which the appellant herein was the Director, was entirely based on the Facebook post of a journalist named Gunanand Jakhmola and as such, the appellant herein was not liable to face prosecution for the said publication.
Writ petition was dismissed
10. As stated above, the High Court proceeded to dismiss the criminal writ petition filed by the appellant vide order dated 20th July, 2020 which is challenged in this appeal.
Analysis
22. It may be noted that the entire case as set out in the impugned FIR is based on the allegation that the Facebook news post uploaded by one journalist Mr. Gunanand Jakhmola was caused to be published on Parvatjan news portal being operated by the appellant.
23. Thus, essentially, we are required to examine whether the contents of the news report constitute any cognizable offence so as to justify the investigation into the allegations made in the FIR against the appellant.
Counter affidavit states that the state has dropped two sections
25. As per the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, after investigation, two substantive offences were retained by the Investigating Officer against the appellant, which are Sections 153A and 504 read with Sections 34 and 120B IPC.
Section 153A IPC: words spoken or written must create enmity between different groups
26. From a bare reading of the language of Section 153A IPC, it is clear that in order to constitute such offence, the prosecution must come out with a case that the words ‘spoken’ or ‘written’ attributed to the accused, created enmity or bad blood between different groups on the ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., or that the acts so alleged were prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony.
There is no reference to any group or groups of people in the News article
27. Upon careful perusal of the offending news article, reproduced (supra), it is crystal clear that there is no reference to any group or groups of people in the said article. The publication focuses totally on the complainant imputing that he had encroached upon public land where the foundation stone laying ceremony was proposed at the hands of Hon’ble Chief Minister of Uttarakhand. Apparently, the post was aimed at frustrating the proposed foundation stone laying ceremony on the land, of which the complainant claims to be the true owner. The post also imputes that the person who was planning the foundation stone ceremony was an enemy of mountains and had no concern with the well-being of the mountains.
E-news paper article did not constitute offence under section 153A IPC
28. Learned standing counsel for the State tried to draw much water from these lines alleging that this portion of the post tends to create a sense of enmity and disharmony amongst people of hill community and the people of plains. However, the interpretation sought to be given to these words is far-fetched and unconvincing. The lines referred to supra only refer to the complainant, imputing that his activities are prejudicial to the hills. These words have no connection whatsoever with a group or groups of people or communities. Hence, the foundational facts essential to constitute the offence under Section 153A IPC are totally lacking from the allegations as set out in the FIR.
Judgment on section 153A IPC
29. In the case of Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra and Anr [(2007) 5 SCC 1], this Court held that for applying Section 153A IPC, the presence of two or more groups or communities is essential, whereas in the present case, no such groups or communities were referred to in the news article.
Section 504 IPC can be invoked only when the insult of person provokes public peace or commit any other offence
30. The other substantive offence which has been applied by the investigating agency is Section 504 IPC. The said offence can be invoked when the insult of a person provokes him to break public peace or to commit any other offence. There is no such allegation in the FIR that owing to the alleged offensive post attributable to the appellant, the complainant was provoked to such an extent that he could indulge in disturbing the public peace or commit any other offence. Hence, the FIR lacks the necessary ingredients of the said offence as well. Since we have found that the foundational facts essential for constituting the substantive offences under Sections 153A and 504 IPC are not available from the admitted allegations of prosecution, the allegations qua the subsidiary offences under Sections 34 and 120B IPC would also be non est.
There is no allegation in the FIR for wrongful gain
31. The complainant has also alleged in the FIR that the accused intended to blackmail him by publishing the news article in question. However, there is no allegation in the FIR that the accused tried to extract any wrongful gain or valuable security from the complainant on the basis of the mischievous/malicious post.
FIR quashed
33. Tested on the touchstone of the above principles, we are of the firm view that allowing continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR bearing No. 31 of 2020 registered at P.S. Muni Ki Reti, District Tehri Garhwal against the appellant is nothing but gross abuse of process of law because the allegations as set out in the FIR do not disclose necessary ingredients of any cognizable offence. Hence, the impugned FIR and all proceedings sought to be taken against the appellant are hereby quashed and set aside.
Party
SHIV PRASAD SEMWAL .….APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS …..RESPONDENT(S) – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 3687 of 2020) – 2024 INSC 220 – March 19, 2024.
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/16717/16717_2020_3_1502_51567_Judgement_19-Mar-2024.pdf
