A Delhi court on Wednesday dismissed a petition filed by CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat seeking lodging of FIRs against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma for their alleged hate speeches in relation to anti-CAA protest at Shaheen Bagh.
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vishal Pahuja dismissed Ms. Karat’s plea, noting that “no previous sanction obtained by the complainants from the competent authority to prosecute the respondents [Mr. Thakur and Mr. Verma] for the offences alleged in the complaint”.
Prior sanction
The court stated that prior sanction of competent authority — Central government — is required as per Section 196 the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) at the stage of ordering of registration of FIR as both persons are MPs.
Ms. Karat had sought registration of FIR against Mr. Thakur and Mr. Verma under Section 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race), 153B (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration), 295A (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings) and 505 (statements conducing to public mischief) of the Indian Penal Code.
Ms. Karat had stated that Mr. Thakur raised chants of “Desh ke gaddaro ko, goli maaro saalon ko” during a rally in Delhi. The complaint stated that Mr. Verma gave false, provocative and communal statements against the Shaheen Bagh protesters.
The counsel appearing for Ms. Karat argued that sanction is only required before taking cognisance by the court and not before passing of order of registration of FIR.
The court, however, said it did not agree with Ms. Karat’s counsel “simply for the reason that as on date the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar & ors. v. M.K. Aiyappa and in L. Narayana Swamy v. State of Karnataka and others stands as precedent to be followed”.
While Ms. Karat’s counsel contended that the above judgments pertains to offences under Prevention of Corruption Act and does not apply in the present case, the court said “the ratio applies in all such cases where previous sanction is required”.
“The same analogy can be drawn and applied in the case in hand as well. The contention of the Counsels for the complainants in this respect is misconceived and cannot be said to be tenable in the eyes of law,” the judge said while dismissing Ms. Karat’s plea.