Union Minister for Youth Affairs and Sports Anurag Thakur. (File)The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a petition by CPI(M) leaders Brinda Karat and K M Tiwari against a trial court order seeking registration of an FIR against Minister of Youth Affairs and Sports and Minister of I&B Anurag Thakur and MP Parvesh Verma for their alleged hate speech in 2020.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, who had reserved the verdict in the case on March 25, said that sanction from the government is required for registration of the FIR in the case. The court also said that the petitioners have failed to follow the prescribed mechanism under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The court thus upheld the order passed by the lower court. A copy of the judgement was not immediately available.
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vishal Pahuja had on August 26, 2020 dismissed the complaint filed by Karat and Tiwari seeking registration of an FIR against Thakur and Verma for their alleged hate speech in relation to the anti-CAA protests.
The lower court, while dismissing the complaint, had said the complainants had not obtained previous sanction from the competent authority to prosecute Thakur and Verma under sections 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, etc), 153B, 295A (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class), 298 (uttering, words with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings), 504 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace), 505 (statements conducing to public mischief) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). As per Section 196 CrPC, prior sanction from the state is required for prosecution of offences punishable under IPC sections 153A, 153B, 295A and 505.
Best of Express Premium
In the petition filed through advocate Tara Narula, the CPI(M) leaders argued that if the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is permitted to stand, no application under CrPC Section 156 (3) – which empowers a magistrate to order an investigation in a cognizable offence – would be maintainable before any court, with respect to offences for which sanction is required to be taken prior to cognizance. It was also argued before the court that the sanction was not required at a pre-cognizance stage or at the stage of registration of FIR.
The petition contended, “the petitioners/complainants, already aggrieved by the failure of the police to register an FIR for the commission of cognizable offences amounting to hate speech, have now been relegated… to seek sanction from the State/Centre, a sanction which is a statutory requirement for taking cognisance, not investigation”.
It was also contended that dismissal of the complaint for lack of sanction means asking the complainant to step in the
shoes of the investigating agency and make a case for prosecution before the sanctioning agency. “Any application for sanction by the complainant at this stage would be without the benefit of materials and evidence obtained during
investigation,” the petition read.
- The Indian Express website has been rated GREEN for its credibility and trustworthiness by Newsguard, a global service that rates news sources for their journalistic standards.
