Express News Service
CHANDIGARH: In a major embarrassment to the Bhagwant Mann-led AAP government, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday quashed two separate FIRs registered against former AAP leader Kumar Vishwas and BJP leader Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga by the state police soon after AAP came to power in the state.
Both Vishwas and Bagga were booked in April by the Punjab Police. While the charge against Vishwas included his inflammatory statements against AAP’s national convener and Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal, Bagga was booked on the charges of making provocative statements, promoting enmity and criminal intimidation.
A Punjab Police team went to arrest Bagga from his residence in Delhi. But it was stopped by the Haryana Police in Kurukshetra while being taken to Punjab. He was brought back to the national capital by Delhi Police hours later.
The single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara passed two separate orders quashing the FIRs. “The facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the court’s non-interference would result in a miscarriage of justice. Thus, the court invokes the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and quashes the FIR and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioner,” the judge said in his order in the case of Vishwas.
In the Bagga case, the judge said, “It is a case where the continuation of criminal proceedings shall amount to an abuse of the process of law.” The court then quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings.”The state police on April 20 visited Vishwas’home in Ghaziabad and summoned him for questioning. The court found no substance in the charges made against him.
On the charge of promoting enmity, the court observed that even if every word of the FIR and the statement in the Vishwas’ interview is taken as a gospel truth, it will still not constitute any offence under section 153-A of the IPC, as the element of culpability and intention was missing. The judge quoted former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the USA, in his order stating that there cannot be any democracy without freedom of choice and free speech.
“At the stroke of midnight, apart from liberty, we got azadi of choice and azadi of free speech and of expression; and we took a great leap forward by endorsing democracy, ushering in equality and dignity, ensuring infinite opportunities to preserve and spearhead this fantastic diversity till eternity,” observed the judge.
In the case of BJP leader Bagga, the judge said Section 153-A of the IPC applies when a person promotes enmity between groups based on religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and acts prejudicial to maintaining harmony. Meanwhile, Vishwas and Bagga thanked the judiciary.
Punjab and Haryana HC cites freedom of speechBoth Vishwas and Bagga were booked in April by the Punjab Police. While the charge against Vishwas included his inflammatory statements against AAP’s national convener and Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal, Bagga was booked on the charges of making provocative statements, promoting enmity and criminal intimidation
CHANDIGARH: In a major embarrassment to the Bhagwant Mann-led AAP government, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday quashed two separate FIRs registered against former AAP leader Kumar Vishwas and BJP leader Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga by the state police soon after AAP came to power in the state.
Both Vishwas and Bagga were booked in April by the Punjab Police. While the charge against Vishwas included his inflammatory statements against AAP’s national convener and Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal, Bagga was booked on the charges of making provocative statements, promoting enmity and criminal intimidation.
A Punjab Police team went to arrest Bagga from his residence in Delhi. But it was stopped by the Haryana Police in Kurukshetra while being taken to Punjab. He was brought back to the national capital by Delhi Police hours later.
The single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara passed two separate orders quashing the FIRs. “The facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the court’s non-interference would result in a miscarriage of justice. Thus, the court invokes the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and quashes the FIR and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioner,” the judge said in his order in the case of Vishwas.
In the Bagga case, the judge said, “It is a case where the continuation of criminal proceedings shall amount to an abuse of the process of law.” The court then quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings.”
The state police on April 20 visited Vishwas’home in Ghaziabad and summoned him for questioning. The court found no substance in the charges made against him.
On the charge of promoting enmity, the court observed that even if every word of the FIR and the statement in the Vishwas’ interview is taken as a gospel truth, it will still not constitute any offence under section 153-A of the IPC, as the element of culpability and intention was missing. The judge quoted former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the USA, in his order stating that there cannot be any democracy without freedom of choice and free speech.
“At the stroke of midnight, apart from liberty, we got azadi of choice and azadi of free speech and of expression; and we took a great leap forward by endorsing democracy, ushering in equality and dignity, ensuring infinite opportunities to preserve and spearhead this fantastic diversity till eternity,” observed the judge.
In the case of BJP leader Bagga, the judge said Section 153-A of the IPC applies when a person promotes enmity between groups based on religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and acts prejudicial to maintaining harmony. Meanwhile, Vishwas and Bagga thanked the judiciary.
Punjab and Haryana HC cites freedom of speech
Both Vishwas and Bagga were booked in April by the Punjab Police. While the charge against Vishwas included his inflammatory statements against AAP’s national convener and Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal, Bagga was booked on the charges of making provocative statements, promoting enmity and criminal intimidation
