Dr Sambit Patra Vs State Of Chhattisgarh: Allegations Made Against Political Leaders Even If Untrue Does Not Amounts To An Offence U/S 505 Of IPC

CRUX - Dr Sambit Patra vs State of Chhattisgarh - Allegations made against political leaders even if untrue does not constitute an offence under section 505 of IPC.

DATE OF JUDGEMENT - 12-4-2021

CORUM - Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

PARTIES

• Dr Sambit Patra (Petitioner)
• State of Chhattisgarh (Respondent)

ISSUE - Whether allegations made against political leaders if untrue constitute an offence under section 505 of IPC.

SUMMARY - The Chhattisgarh HC quashes FIRs against BJP spokespersons Sambit Patra and Tajinder Bagga stating that allegations made against political leaders even if untrue cannot constitute an offence under section 505 of IPC.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

• Section 499, 500, 501, 153A, 298, and 505(1) of IPC
• Section 66 of IT act, 2000
• Article 19(1)(A) and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
• Section 199(1) of CrPC

OVERVIEW

• The present case was brought before this court when the petitioner prayed for the quashing of two FIRs filed against him.
• FIR number 192/2020 registered in Bhilai Nagar Police station on 11th May 2020 for the offences under section 499, 500, 501, and 505 (1) of IPC.
• FIR number 102/2020 registered at Bhanupratappur police station on 24th May 2020 for the offences under section 153A and 505 of IPC and section 66 of IT Act.
• Since there is a common question of law in both the writ petitions, they are being heard together by this court.
• The petitioner, Sambit Patra is a doctor by profession and is also currently disposing his duties as the spokesperson of the political party, BJP.
• On 8 May 2020 MP Congress posted a tweet presenting certain allegations against the ruling government BJP formation handling of covid-19 outbreak in India the treat also claims that if Congress were in power, they would have taken care of the situation much better than the BJP. In response the BJP spokesperson submit Patra through his tweet replied wittily that of Congress party was in power during the pandemic situation there would have been corruption on mass scale on various levels.
• As a response to this tweet, a FIR was lodged against the BJP spokesperson and as a response to the FIR Sambit Patra made two more tweets sledging Jawaharlal Nehru and Rajiv Gandhi of corruption and for these two tweets, another FIR was lodged as well.
• Another BJP spokesperson, Tajinder Bagga also tweeted in response of Sambit Patra's tweet and supported him and throwing allegations on Congress and Rajiv Gandhi. Later, a FIR was lodged against him as well.

ARGUMENTS BY THE PARTIES

• The petitioner in the repetition claims that both the FIR are baseless accusations and there is a clear abuse of the process of law. The petitioner also claimed that these FIRs are registered to harass him and to suppress is fundamental right to free speech and expression as well as is right to life and personal liberty. The petitioner also stated that the FIR was illegal, arbitrary, and unjust and it was nothing else but a way to seek vengeance throughout politically motivated criminal investigation. It was further claimed by the petitioner that even if the FIRs were taken into the consideration neglecting the political Vendetta and the harassment, therefore still no clear fat to establish the ingredients of offence under section 499, 505, 501, 505(1), 153A, 298, and 505 (2) of the IPC. The council also quoted the case of State of Haryana and others vs Bhajan Lal and others1 and claimed that both the FIRs deserve to be quashed.
• The state responded that the police has registered the FIR on the basis of complaints made by respondent number 4 and 7 of cognizable offence against the spokesperson and the trial being conducted is free fair and transparent by the investigating authorities on the basis of these complaints. The state also provided that the matter is currently under investigation and after such investigation is completed with accordance to law a final report will be filed before the magistrate and during this stage FIR are not liable to be quashed. As the scope, of this court to interfere in the matter under article 226 of the constitution is limited. The FIRs also prima facie disclose the commission of the cognizable offences against the petitioner and the court should not interfere with the investigation and should allow the investigation to continue. And the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT

1. Justice SK Agarwal observed that regarding the offences under section 499, 500, and 501 the investigation by the investigation authorities (Police) of a non-cognizable offence without a permission of the competent magistrate is illegal as without such permission the police officer does not have any jurisdiction to investigate such non cognizable offence without the order of the magistrate who have the jurisdiction to try such case.
2. The court held that regarding section 505 of IPC nearly making such allegations against political party leaders even if they are a true or incorrect would not constitutes for such offence under this section.
3. The court also held that the complainant who is not neither near relative nor a family member of late Jawaharlal Nehru and late Rajiv Gandhi cannot decide himself that the status of an aggrieved person within the meaning of section 199(1) of CrPC that his feelings were hurt by such a alleged defamatory statement.
4. The court while discussing the provisions of section 153A of IPC quoted the case of Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan vs Union of India and others2 in which it was held that the purpose of this provision was to check if there were "communal and separatist tendencies" in the statement.
5. The court also referred to the judgement of Bilal Ahmed Kalu vs state of AP3, in which it was held that common feature between both the sections 153A and 505 (2) is promotion of feelings of hatred in Amity or ill will between different religious linguistic or cast groups or communities. Para 10, 11, and 12 of the judgement were also quoted.
6. The court also referred to the case of Manzar Sayeed Khan vs State of Maharashtra and another4 in which it was held that it is an essential ingredient of offence under section 153A and 505(2) of IPC that there should be at least two groups or communities involved.
7. And in the recent case of Amish Devgan vs Union of India5, the principles laid down in Manzar Sayeed Khan and Bilal Ahmed Kalu case were upheld by the court.
8. Ultimately the court also referred to the case of Patricia Mukhim vs state of Meghalaya and others6 in which the supreme court recently quashed an FIR filed against the petitioner under section 153A and 505(1) of the IPC for a post which was posted on Facebook related to violence against non-tribal people in the state of Meghalaya. Paras 9, 13, and 15 were quoted by the court.
9. While observing section 298 of the IPC, the court said that this section revolves around the oral words uttered in presence of a person and shell has no application in this complain where the statement was written in a tweet. The ingredients to constitutes an offence under this section was not fulfilled and no allegations against the petitioners were made that wounded religious feelings of any person.
10. The court further held that there was no two different religious, racial, ethnic, or regional groups or caste or community is involved in this case which was sine-qua-non for the fulfillment of offences under section 153A and 505(2) of IPC. And the basic ingredients for these offences were completely missing in this case. Subsequently the FIRs were quashed.

CONCLUSION

This case was brought before the court when FIR filed against BJP spokespersons, Sambit Patra and Tajinder Bagga for their tweets alleging corruption and various other crimes against Congress and their political leaders. The petitioners moved before the court claiming that this was just and political agenda and the motor for search FIR is vengeance. The state claimed that the FIR was registered on the basis of complaints made by the respondent and affair and transparent investigation is taking place and the court shall not interfere in the matter as the investigation is still ongoing. The court held that the ingredients of section 153A and 505(2) of IPC were not fulfilled send the tweets by the petitioners but not meant to promote hatred or violence between any communities. Ultimately, the court decided that allegations made against political leaders even if untrue does not constitute an offence under section 505 of IPC.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement