'Petitioner's Resources Should Be Probed': Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea Against Closure Report In Hate Speech Case Against Yogi Adityanath

The Allahabad High Court today dismissed a plea filed by one Parvez Parwaz challenging a Trial Court's order rejecting his protest plea against closure report in the alleged 2007 hate speech case against Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.

The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that the Petitioner (Parwaz) is a busy body who has been fighting the case since 2007 and that his resources to fight/contest the litigation should be a matter of investigation.

"The petitioner appears to be a busy body who himself is facing several criminal cases, and he has been fighting this case since 2007. The petitioner must have been incurring huge expenses in engaging counsels to contest this case before the trial Court, this Court and the Supreme Court. His resources to fight/contest the litigation should be a matter of investigation," the bench remarked.

Significantly, the Court also found substance in the submissions made by Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal that Petitioner is an impostor who has been set up by the forces, which are opposing Yogi Adityanath and the forces, which do not want progress of the State of Uttar Pradesh and India.

"It is for the State to investigate the said aspect, however, this Court does not want to say anything further or give any direction in this regard," the Court further added leaving it virtually open for the state to probe into the issue, if it so desires.

With this, the bench dismissed his plea with an exemplary cost of Rupees One Lakh to be deposited in the “Army Welfare Fund Battle Casualties” within four weeks.

The background of the case

The petitioner, accusing Adityanath (the then Member of Parliament) and others of making a hate speech that led to the incidents described as ‘2007 Gorakhpur Riots’, filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC for lodging of the FIR.

The FIR was sought to be lodged under Sections under Sections 120-B, 153-A, 153-B, 295-A, 295-B, 143, 147, 435, 436, 452, 427, 395, 302 and 307 IPC and 3/4 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and Railways Act.

The said application was rejected in July 2008 by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur, purusuant to which, the petitioner moved the HC. In September 2008, the HC set-aside the order of the Court of CJM. The Court also directed for loding of the FIR. and remitted back the matter to the court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

On remand, the FIR was registered in November 2008 against five accused persons, including Yogi Adityanath. Now, alleging that the probe was not being conducted in a fair manner, the petitioner moved a criminal writ petitioner before the HC seeking various prayers.

Significantly, during the pendency of the plea, the UP Government, in 3 May 2017, refused to grant prosecution sanction under Section 196 CrPC and hence, a final report in the matter was submitted on May 6, 2017.

Thereafter, the High Court, in Feb 2018, while deciding several other issues raised in the case, did not find any procedural error, either, in the conduct of the investigation or in the decision making process, refusing prosecution sanction or any other illegality in the order which could have been interfered with by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the plea was dismissed.

Against the dismissal of the plea, the petitioner moved the Supreme Court, wherein arguments were limited to the denial of Sanction by the state government under Section 196 CrPC.

The Apex Court too, dismissed the plea in August last year while noting that the investigation in the case was over and closure report was filed in the Court by the investigating agency, against which, a protest petition had been filed, which was pending for consideration before the trial Court.

Importantly, the Supreme Court did not go into the contentions raised by both sides on issue of denial of sanction for prosecution and the legal submissions made in relation to the said issue and the legal question, on the issue of sanction for prosecution, was left open to be considered in an appropriate case.

Now, when in November 2022, the trial court dismissed the protest petition while arguiing that once the issue of legality/validity of sanction for prosecution had attained finality upto the Supreme Court, the same issue could not be re-opened. Now, challenging the rejection of the protest plea, the petitioner moved the instant plea before the HC.

Contentions raised before the HC

Senior Advocate S.F.A. Naqvi, assisted by Advocates Fatma Anjum and Mr. Manauvar Husain submitted that the question of legality of order, refusing sanction for prosecution, was left open by the Supreme Court and, therefore, it cannot be said that the issue had attained finality.

It was further submitted that while deciding the protest petition filed by the petitioner against the closure/final report, the trial Court could/ought to have decided the issue of legality of the order, refusing prosecution sanction.

On the other hand, the Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal argued that the issues raised in the protest petition and in the petition had attained finality upto the Supreme Court and hence, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the same issues time & again.

Importantly, it was further submitted that the petitioner has been indulging in vexatious prosecution of the elected and popular Chief Minister of this State, who has changed the face of the State since he assumed the charge of the State in the year 2017.

It was further submitted that some forces are working against the popular Chief Minister to derail the progress of the State and hence, the plea be dismissed.

High Court's observations

At the outset, the Court noted that the only question which was raised by the counsel for the petitioner before the Supreme Court was regarding the validity of order, refusing sanction for prosecution under Section 196 CrPC and since, the Supreme Court, did not answer the issue and dismissed the appeal, thus, the judgment of the Division Bench had attained finality.

"The said issue could not have been decided by the learned trial Court again. I find that the trial Court has rightly refused to go into the said question once it got decided by the Supreme Court. Once the question of sanction got finally settled, the trial Court could not have taken cognizance on the police report or on the protest petition as the accused, being a public servant, no cognizance could be taken without there being sanction by the competent authority for prosecution", the Court noted.

In other words, the Court opined that since the question of validity of sanction got decided by the Division Bench of the Court against which the Supreme Court had dismissed the appeal and, therefore, the question of validity of order, refusing sanction for prosecution under Section 196 CrPC of the accused got finally settled, and the said issue was now barred by principle of res judicata in subsequent proceedings of the same case

Further, observing that once the sanction for prosecution was refused, the investigation, even otherwise could not have been carried out by an order under Section 156(3) CrPC as in the present case, the Court dismissed the plea with Rs. 1 Lakh cost.

Case title - Parvez Parwaz And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4227 of 2023]

Case Citation:

Click Here To Read/Download Order