SHIV PRASAD SEMWAL VS. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

INTRODUCTION: 

The case concerns an appeal filed before the Uttarakhand High Court contesting the denial of a criminal writ petition against an FIR under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code. According to the FIR, the appellant and other parties released a defamatory news story to blackmail the complainant and cause disruption. However, after looking into the article’s content and the accusations, the court concluded that insufficient components were necessary to prove the violations. Citing it as a flagrant misuse of the legal system, the court dismissed the FIR and quashed all proceedings against the appellant.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. The case revolves around a dispute regarding the ownership of land in the village Singthali, Tehsil Narendra Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal, Uttarakhand. Respondent No.3, Shri Rajeev Savara, claimed ownership of approximately 1.196 hectares of land on National Highway No. 7 to establish a Matra Ashraya-A collection museum.
2. He planned a foundation stone laying ceremony for this museum, to be attended by the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Uttarakhand and Juna Peethadheeshwar Acharya Mahamandaleshwar Swami Avdheshanand Ji Maharaj, scheduled for 20th March 2020.
3. However, a news report suggesting that the property meant for the museum was illegally occupied government land was published in the e-newspaper ‘Parvatjan’ on March 17, 2020, before the event. 
4. This piece was allegedly staged by the accused. The post ridiculed the complainant’s participation in the foundation stone ceremony and said he was connected to mafias. Additionally, it implied that the Chief Minister’s attendance at the function went against the wishes of the neighborhood and the government-planned initiatives for the area.
5. As a result, the complainant charged the accused of crimes covered by Sections 153A, 500, 501, 504, 34, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and filed a FIR (FIR No. 31 of 2020) at P.S. Muni Ki Reti, District Tehri Garhwal, Uttarakhand.
6. The appellant, who was allegedly involved in the news article’s publication, filed a criminal writ petition (No. 881 of 2020) to contest the FIR. The appellant claimed their innocence and contended that the accusations did not amount to a crime that could be prosecuted. 
7. On July 20, 2020, the High Court denied the writ petition, which prompted the appellant to file an appeal. In a counter-affidavit, the State stated that no crimes against the publication, its editor, or the appellant were discovered throughout the investigation. The appellant and Gunanand Jakhmola, the journalist whose Facebook post allegedly served as the inspiration for the defamatory article, were the center of the investigation, nevertheless.

ISSUES RAISED:

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR justify the initiation of criminal proceedings against the appellant.
2. Whether the acts mentioned in the FIR—publishing a news piece, in particular—amount to blackmail and defamation.
3. Whether the charges against the appellant in criminal court have been allowed to continue despite insufficient grounds and necessary elements, or if this is an abuse of the legal system.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:

1. They argued that the statements ascribed to the accused in the FIR did not incite animosity or discord among various communities based on caste, religion, race, or any other basis.
2. The appellant’s attorney claimed that there were no racial, religious, caste, community, or place of birth-based imputations in the news piece that was posted on the Parvatjan internet portal.
3. Therefore, they contended that the FIR does not prove the elements of the Section 153A IPC violation. It was further maintained that the news article’s contents did not encourage animosity or hostility among various communities. There were no obvious signs that more than one organization was involved, even if the accusations in the FIR were to be believed.  
4. The appellant’s attorney argued that a defamation lawsuit would have been the proper line of action if the complainant had been offended by the news report. Rather, they charged that the complainant had filed a baseless FIR against the appellant to abuse the criminal justice system.  As a result, they demanded that the FIR and all associated procedures be dismissed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:

1. In response to the appellant’s arguments, the State of Uttarakhand’s standing counsel cited the state’s counter-affidavit. They contended that investigative findings by journalist Gunanand Jakhmola revealed that his Facebook post had been altered. This implies that the scope of the inquiry may go beyond the offenses listed in the first file report. 
2. The standing counsel further argued that the appellant may have incited conflict and unrest between residents of plain and hilly areas by permitting the publication of a false and malicious news piece, which would have violated Sec153A of IPC.
3. Furthermore, they contended that the Investigating Officer had additionally applied the charge under Section 504 read with Sections 34 and 120B IPC. As a result, they concluded that there was no need to intervene with the contested order.

JUDGMENT: 

After reviewing the FIR, the court determined that there was not enough evidence to prove the appellant had committed any crimes that would be considered crimes.
It concluded that the acts detailed in the FIR, including the publishing of a news story, did not fulfill the requirements to be considered crimes, such as inciting a breach of peace or inciting animosity between groups.

The blackmail and defamation claims were rejected by the court because they were baseless and unjustified. It also found that it was an abuse of the legal system for the criminal case against the appellant to continue. Due to the lack of sufficient grounds and necessary components to support their continuation, the court invalidated the FIR and halted all proceedings against the appellant.

ANALYSIS:

The court carefully reviewed the evidence, the contested order, and the arguments made by each party.  The case concerns accusations based on a Facebook news post that was submitted by journalist Gunanand Jakhmola and then posted on the appellant’s Parvatjan news portal. The court’s main concern was whether the news report’s contents constituted a crime that might be investigated to support the appellant’s allegations. 

The Chief Minister was arranging a ceremony to lay a foundation stone on land that the complainant said was encroaching upon. The court copied the contested news story for reference. After reviewing the FIR, the court concluded that the charges did not contain sufficient details to be classified as crimes under Sections 153A and 504 IPC. It was pointed out that the news report mostly concentrated on the complainant’s activities concerning the contested area, without making any mention of any particular communities or groups. The court highlighted the need for the existence of two or more groups or communities in order to apply Section 153A IPC, which was not present in this instance, by citing prior legal decisions, particularly the Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra case.

CONCLUSION:
The court concluded that the FIR’s claims were insufficient to prove that there was a violation of Sections 153A and 504 IPC. As a result, it was decided that there were no subsidiary offenses under Sections 34 and 120B IPC. The court observed that there were no allegations pointing to the commission of other Section 504 IPC offenses or the provocation of public peace. It further noted that the plaintiff had not made any claims of attempted extortion. The court used the guidelines established in the States of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. case, highlighting circumstances in which the use of exceptional authority to stop criminal proceedings is appropriate. 

After taking into account the aforementioned analysis, the court determined that it would be a clear misuse of the legal process to proceed with the proceedings based on the contested FIR.  As a result, the FIR and all associated actions against the appellant were dismissed by the court. The contested FIR and associated actions were set aside by the court upon granting the appeal. Processing of waiting Applications: All applications that were still waiting were processed appropriately.

REFERENCES: 

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/147947150/ 
2. SCC Online
3. https://lawchakra.in/supreme-court-quashes-fir-over-news-article/#:~:text=On%20Tuesday%20%2819th%20March%29%2CThe%20Supreme%20Court%20overturned%20an,recognizable%20criminal%20offenses%2C%20providing%20significant%20relief%20to%20Semwal. 

Written by VARTIKA RAWAT an intern under legal vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin