Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Filed Against NCPCR Chief For Allegedly Trespassing Into Orphanage, Passing Derogatory Remarks
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday quashed the prosecution initiated against National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) chief Priyank Kanoongo, for allegedly trespassing into a Muslim orphanage and comparing the living conditions there with life under Taliban rule. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed Kanoongo's quashing petition. Detailed order...
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday quashed the prosecution initiated against National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) chief Priyank Kanoongo, for allegedly trespassing into a Muslim orphanage and comparing the living conditions there with life under Taliban rule.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed Kanoongo's quashing petition. Detailed order is awaited.
Kanoongo and his team had visited the orphanage on November 19, 2023, following which a complaint was filed by Darul Uloom Sayideeya orphanage secretary, Ashraf Khan. The police had registered a case under sections 447, 448, 295A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code on November 21, 2023.
It was alleged that Kanoongo visited the orphanage without prior permission and had taken photographs and videographed and tweeted and uploaded, commenting on Taliban-like terrorist activities taking place in madarasa.
The court referred to the tweet which was the basis for the complaint and orally observed, “Taliban jaise jeevan jee rahein hai. Does it have any relation to terrorism? You cannot put in your own translation and make it a complaint. It is a metaphor used by the person who came in. You (complainant) are using a metaphor into a complaint. A metaphor cannot become a substantive offence even in defamation proceedings.” Following which the counsel for the complainant conceded to have wrongly translated the tweet.
As regards the allegation of trespass into the madrasa, the counsel did not press the same. The court said they are government officials and are authorised to conduct an inspection.
However, with respect to the offence under Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious belief, the counsel asked whether the petitioner is required to tweet the official duty he undertakes.
Allowing the petition, the court orally said, “Government officials should encourage restraint, when you go and report, it should form what you have reported and what you have noticed, you should not tweet on that.”
Appearance: Advocate Vatsal Joshi for Petitioner.
Case Title: PRIYANK KANOONGO AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.P 5840/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 407.