The sisters had asked the HC to annul the FIR and an order from a metropolitan magistrate on October 16 directing the Mumbai police to register and investigate a criminal case against them for a complaint filed by a casting director, Munnawar Ali Sayyed. The FIR accused them of sedition, promoting enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion and hurting religious sentiments through their posts on social media.
Sayyed alleged that they were making objectionable comments on social media with the aim of causing community tension. Ranaut claims that his complaint is “absolutely vague and baseless.”
A court of judges SS Shinde and MS Karnik asked prosecutor Deepak Thakre on Tuesday why the serious offense of sedition was invoked in the case under section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
“We can understand other sections but we don’t understand why to invoke section 124A, IPC. Hold a workshop for your officers. Not in this particular case, but in any case, ” said the bench during the hearing via videoconference.
The PP said that the FIR was registered by order of a magistrate, based on the complaint before it.
The court also orally observed, “If someone does not conform to the government, will they be lured (section 124A)?” “Has it become routine for section 124A of the IPC (sedition) to be added in complaints? For what? Are the citizens of this country being treated like this? ” Judge Shinde asked, referring to the invocation of section 124A, IPC.
Judge Shinde said: “It is invoked since it is a serious crime … to be left to the court to annul the cases.”
Attorney Merchant said, “the law on sedition must be established” and said that the HC can do that as there are “two old sentences” and nothing since. He said “now, even if you know, how disaffection and disapproval can invoke 124A”.
Judge Shinde also observed orally: “Every citizen has fundamental rights. Sure, there is freedom of expression, but no one can claim: “I have this absolute right.” To enjoy fundamental rights, the right to remain silent or lead a peaceful life of the other person is also there… it must not be violated. All citizens must take care of this. ”
Attorney Rizwan Merchant, the informant’s attorney, maintained that “at least until the court deals with this matter,” Kangana and her sister “should not post online postings regarding the FIR against them.” On instructions, his lawyer Rizwan Siddiquee stated that they will not publish such statements in relation to the FIR. The HC accepted Siddiquee’s statement.
The HC noted that Merchant opposed the granting of provisional protection, as did the prosecutor, but said that “provisional protection, until the matter is heard in depth, deserves to be granted to the applicants: the sisters.”
The sisters’ petition stated that “the magistrate did not even justify how some of the tweets promote enmity between different groups for reasons of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste and community … or acts detrimental to the maintenance community harmony … ”to attract the offense under section 153A of the IPC.
Nor does the magistrate in the order justify an FIR under section 124 IPC (sedition), the petition says. He cites Supreme Court judgments to argue that sedition cannot be invoked simply on charges without actual incitement to violence.
Their petition, which was signed by them, in Hyderabad on 20 November, raised technical reasons that the complainant did not wait the “mandatory 15 days” for the police to act on a complaint before escalating it. He questioned, “if the magistrate was wrong to accept the complaint within only 14 days instead of the mandatory period of 15 days.” He said that Sayyed had sent a “flawed” complaint to a deputy police commissioner on October 1 after filing a complaint on September 16 at Bandra police station and on October 15 submitted an “ambiguous and flawed affidavit” along with his “premature affidavit”. request ”requesting orders from the magistrate alleging police inaction.
The law allows a person to file a “private complaint” alleging that the police refused to file an FIR and the magistrate can direct its search and the appropriate investigation.
The sisters said Sayyed has “blatantly abused the judicial machinery” and said the HC has the power to override an FIR, which is just an abuse of legal process.
HC Bank on Tuesday also noted that section 124A (crime of sedition) is sometimes
Attorney Merchant, who appeared on Sayyed’s behalf, began by saying that he wanted time as the petition was delivered to him only after midnight and an incomplete copy of the FIR was attached. “It is without a statement from the informant, which is an integral part of the FIR.” He also said that six sentences that the sisters relied on to argue their request for annulment were delivered late. He said that before the court can decide on the annulment of a case, the statement of the FIR must be analyzed.
Lawyer Siddiquee said that he had attached the FIR document received from the trial court, as the police were not providing him with the copy.
Siddiquee said the sisters “have no intention of disregarding the summons or avoiding them.” He said they were out of Maharashtra and therefore unable to attend when Thakre said the last summons could be returned on November 23. He also said that they were out of Maharashtra. willing to participate via videoconference in response to the call.
Advocate Merchant raised objections saying why they couldn’t appear “as soon as possible” if they wanted provisional protection. He said the wedding is over, why do you want time until January? “What is special about them? Why can’t they respond to the subpoenas now? ”. The court asked him whether he wanted to reserve his “vehement objections” for later during the hearing or to do so now. Merchant said he would bow to what the HC says.
.
