Tag: fir

-Report by Ishika Sehgal

The Supreme Court said on 19 July that no coercive measures be used against her in connection with the numerous FIRs filed in various states about her comments on the Prophet Mohammed during a television channel debate on May 26th. The Court declared that the same relief would apply to any subsequent FIR or complaint that might be filed against her with regard to the same transmission.

The apex court harshly criticized Sharma for her derogatory remarks about the Prophet on July 1, saying that she is “single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country” and that her “loose tongue” has “set the entire country on fire.” Sharma’s remark on the Prophet during a TV debate triggered protests across the country and drew sharp reactions from many Gulf countries. The petition was withdrawn by Sharma’s attorney in response to the bench’s scathing comments. She was later expelled from the BJP. The murder of a tailor in Udaipur by two individuals, who had posted videos online and claimed to be avenging an insult to Islam, had been the backdrop of the court’s observations
against the suspended BJP leader. Sharma filed a new case with the Supreme Court asking for protection from arrest as well as the reinstatement of her withdrawn suit asking for the clubbing of FIRs filed in various states due to her comments on the Prophet Mohammad.

The petitioner has claimed 4 events including a horrific video that has gone viral, Khadim of the Ajmer Dargah calls for the application or petitioner’s throat to be slit, and A resident of Uttar Pradesh created a popular video criticizing the petitioner in an offensive manner and also, she anticipates being arrested immediately as a result of a “lookout circular” from the Kolkata Police that was issued on July 2, 2022. Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, Sharma’s attorney, claimed that since the Supreme Court’s order of July 1, genuine and serious life threats have been made against her. As a result of these threats to her life and liberty, Sharma is unable to use the alternative remedy of going before the High Court, as the Supreme Court had earlier instructed.

After taking into account this argument, the bench stated that its top priority is to protect Sharma so she can exercise her legal rights. This Court’s concern was to make sure the petitioner can use the proper remedy as provided by this Court’s ruling from July 1, 2022. Additionally, it was permitted to serve the respondents by dasti notice and through each of their respective Standing Counsels. The court also said that as an interim measure, it is directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned FIR(s)/complaint(s) or the FIR(s)/complaint(s) which may be registered/entertained in the future pertaining to the telecast dated 26.05.2022 on Times Now.

A petition was filed for quashing an FIR, which was registered at the Jaitpur, Delhi police station. The FIR was registered under sections 323(punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 341(Punishment for wrongful restraint), 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation), 509 (Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman), 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the IPC.

The children of the complainant and the petitioners had a fight and later the parents got involved which led to a heated argument. The nature of injuries has been reported to be “simple” by the MLC. The parties have now arrived at a settlement with their own consent and therefore they had filed the petition to quash the FIR.

The High Court allowed the quashing of the FIR on the condition that all the parties involved have to work with the Delhi Jal Board team and clean the Yamuna river. A certificate will be issued after 45 days which has to be submitted within one week of receipt. They have to report within ten days from the issuance of the order. It was observed:

“FIR…… and proceedings pursuant thereto, if any, are hereby quashed subject to the petitioners and respondents working with Delhi Jal Board Team under the supervision of Member,………. All the petitioners and respondents will report and do the work assigned for cleaning river Yamuna for a period of 45 days. At the end of satisfactory service, the petitioners and respondents will be given a certificate by Delhi Jal Board for Yamuna Cleaning and this certificate by each of the petitioners and respondents must be placed on record within one week of their receipt. It is expected that the petitioners and respondents will help in cleaning Yamuna river with all their sincere efforts and energies.”

It is indeed a unique punishment that will be beneficial for the environment. The case has been listed for compliance on 16th August 2022.

CASE: Mamta Devi and Ors. vs. The State of NCT OF Delhi and Ors.

http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=166343&yr=2022

by SALONI THAWANI

The Apex Court recently issued notice in reference to a plea made by Twitter India who was seeking the quashing of numerous FIRs registered against it for the promoting of a tweet by one Gurpatwant Singh Pannum on “Khalistan“, allegedly.

Twitter claimed that multiple FIRs have been registered against the corporation after Gurpatwant Singh Pannum had tweeted a poll on Twitter on “whether India should recognize Khalistan’2020.”

The plea put forward by Twitter stated that Vinit Goenka, National Co-Convener of the BJP IT cell and several other complainants claimed that Twitter had taken monetary consideration to promote the “Khalistan” tweet, whereas in reality, Twitter had blocked the questionable tweet and furthermore, suspended his account.

Twitter India submitted that in the past several months, Vinit Goenka and his supporters have conducted webinars demanding for Twitter to be announced as a terrorist organisation, for Twitter’s officers to be charged with sedition and moreover, to instigate mass filing of cases against Twitter and its employees.

The claims alleged by Vinit Goenka and his supporters are frivolous, unfounded and actuated by malice, Twitter added, arguing that it had no role in deciding Twitter’s Ad policy and that Twitter does not obtain revenue for the content that is promoted on their platform.

Twitter Communications stated that it has no control whatsoever over the content shared on the website and that the content is monitored by Twitter Inc, which is based in the United States. Twitter also stated that their role is limited to promoting brands, research, development, marketing and soliciting.

Twitter has therefore pleaded for the consolidation of themultiple FIRs filed against them in one place, pointing out the example of Arnab Goswami, in whose case the Supreme Court, under Article 32 of the Constitution had directed the consolidation of such FIRs when there were multiple in number.

Twitter Communications had also claimed that Vinit Goenka had called upon users to file multiple cases against the Twitter with the sole intention of harassing, threatening and intimidating the entity.

Restating that multitude of cases cannot be filed for the same act, the Indian entity stated that all the complaints, filed across eight States in India, are identical in nature and allegations.

Twitter’s plea added that the doctrine of vicarious liability can be implored only in certain exceptional cases.

Twitter Communications had also moved the Gauhati High Court to quash the lead FIR registered in Tinsukia, Assam. Thus, Twitter’s plea stated that they do not pray for quashing of the Assam FIR due to its already being pending before the Gauhati High Court, but seeks quashing of the rest of the identical FIRs.

Twitter has urged the court to combine all the FIRs into one at Tinsukia, in the alternative.

Advocate Sajjan Poovayya appeared as the legal counsel for Twitter assisted by Avocates Manu Kulkarni, Parul Shukla and Saransh Jain. The notice in this matter was issued by a Bench which was headed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, SA Bobde.

In the proceedings which were conducted via video-conferencing, the bench, also comprising Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, issued notices on the plea to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and Karnataka, Assam, Haryana, Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Maharashtra , Odisha and the Police Commissioner of Delhi.

The bench has also requested responses from the numerous complainants who have filed the complaints against Twitter, a social media giant.

The bench has also issued the notice to Vinit Goenka, a BJP functionary who claimed that the firm had allegedly taken monetary consideration to promote the questionable tweet.  

Twitter had argued that they have no control whatsoever over the shared content on Twitter’s website and that the content is monitored by the Twitter Inc based in USA.