The Chhattisgarh High Court quashed the First Information Report registered against BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra for his tweets on former Prime Minister of India Jawaharlal Nehru and Rajiv Gandhi.
While quashing the same, the Single Bench of Justice Sanjay K Agarwal held that while the contents of the tweet might be untrue, it was not of such nature that could invoke any community to commit any offence against any other community.
The High Court held the same in a bunch of petitions filed by Patra and fellow BJP Spokesperson Tajinder Pal Bagga seeking quashing of FIRs lodged against them with respect to the tweets on Nehru and Gandhi.
Factual Background
In May 2020 a Congress Member of Parliament posted a tweet criticizing the Narendra Modi Government for its mishandling of the Covid-19 crisis. In reply to this tweet, Patra stated if the Congress Party would have been in charge of the pandemic, there would have been corruption on a mass scale.
A complaint was subsequently filed in Delhi seeking registration of an FIR against Patra for offences under Section 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code for using derogatory remarks against the Congress party and its leaders.
A second complaint was instituted in Chhattisgarh for registration of offences under Sections 153 A and 505 of the IPC and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Observation of the Court
The Court was of the view that there was no offence being made under Section 505, the Court proceeded to deal with the charges under Section 499 and 500 IPC. While noting the two-fold test to determine defamation of a deceased person as per Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court held,
“complainant, who admittedly and undisputedly, is neither “family member” nor “near relative” of late Shri Jawaharlal Nehru and late Shri Rajiv Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India, cannot unilaterally assume unto himself the status of an aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 199 (1) of the CrPC.”
With respect to charges under Section 153 A, the Court held,
“In my considered view, there was no intention on the part of the petitioner herein to promote class/ community hatred and no attempt was made by the petitioner to incite the people belonging to a community to indulge in any violence and merely alleging inciting the feeling of one community or group without any reference to any other community or group would not attract either of the two penal provisions”.
Further noting that offence under Section 298 IPC was not made out against the Bagga, the Court held,
"In fact, the petitioner is said to have made two tweets which are said to be against the then Prime Minister of the country. But there is no allegiance that he uttered any oral word in presence of respondent No. 4 which is one of the essential ingredients for offence under Section 298 of the IPC. There is no allegation that the petitioner wounded the religious feelings of any person including respondent No.4. As such, none of the ingredients for constituting the offence under Section 298 of the IPC is available against the petitioner.”
Case Details
Before: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Tile: Sambit Patra v. State of Chhattisgarh
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay K Agarwal
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
