The single judge bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Kumar Vishwas Vs State of Punjab and another quashes the F.I.R and held that the disruption of the investigation shall not constitute the stifling of investigation.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner, Kumar Vishwas, to satiate his personal enmity and hatred, gave a proactive video interview to ANI and other news channels, wherein he made baseless imputations regarding involvement of AAP’s national convener Mr. Arvind Kejriwal, with certain nefarious and anti-social elements. The interview was widely circulated in the media and was being re-tweeted and numerously shared on social media websites through meticulous planning to promote hatred, animosity, and feelings of hostility in the State of Punjab, against the members of AAP. This was done deliberately with an intent to associate every leader, member, and supporter of AAP, with nefarious and disruptive elements. The timing and nature of the proactive statements were purposefully and strategically aimed to spread a communal narrative to create unrest and instability across Punjab during the elections to the State Legislative Assembly, and this instigation subjected AAP supporters to hatred, hostility, distrust, and vengeful violence, significantly rupturing the peaceful religious fabric of Punjab. Thereafter, the FIR was registered for the offenses under sections 153, 153A, 505, 505(2), 116, 143, 147, 323, 341, 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860, [IPC] and 125 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.
The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that due to the petitioner's acrimonious relationship with the AAP, which is currently in power in Punjab and of which he was a founding member, the FIR is politically motivated and uses the State's apparatus to exact revenge for the petitioner's rejection of the party's rules. This is a serious abuse of power.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state of Punjab has contended that the probe had only begun when this court had delayed further action procedures, the investigation on key factors has not yet been completed, and if this court moves forward with its decision to quash the FIR, it would be preventing the police from carrying out their mandated duty to look into a severe crime. Another argument is that as a result of this interview, similar incidences took place on February 18, 2022, in the Chamkaur Sahib Vidhan Sabha constituency, according to daily diary reports. It was further contended that the complaint discloses the commission of a prima facie offence, and it is not a case that falls in the category of exceptional cases, where the High Court might use its inherent powers under section 482 CrPC to put a lid on everything.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court stated that the investigation in the present FIR would not bring in its sweep all the previous incidents about which the concerned officers had not even registered any FIRs, and now, it would be legally impermissible to link or club the prior incidents with the current, which is later in time. The parties do not dispute the factum of the interview and its correctness. The matter requires nothing else to be proved. The veracity of the statements made in the interview is not required to be gone into and considered by launching the prosecution for trial as the same remains undisputed. The only relevant issue that remains to be addressed is whether the interview of the petitioner given on Feb 16, 2022, led to the incident of Apr 12, 2022. Given above, the disruption of the investigation shall not constitute the stifling of investigation.
It was held that the petitioner was not one of the 10-12 unknown persons who allegedly waylaid the complainant. There is no prima facie material connecting the incident of April 12, 2022 with the interviews of the petitioner, and there are missing links. Thus, it would not be permissible to expand the scope of the complaint to connect the alleged subsequent incident by fishing the evidence and on the assumptions and suspicions of the complainant. It is a fit case for this court to prevent the abuse of the process of law because the allegations made in the complaint and the investigation do not contain any material which even remotely links the incidents including that of April 12 with the interviews of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the court’s non-interference would result in a miscarriage of justice, and thus, the court invokes the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC and quashes the FIR and all subsequent proceedings qua the petitioner. All pending application(s), if any, stand closed.
CASE NAME- Kumar Vishwas Vs State of Punjab and another
CITATION- CRM-M-17450-2022
DATE-12.10.22
CORUM- Justice Anoop Chitkara
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
