Offences Alleged Against Salman Khan Not Made Out, Judicial Process Not Tool To Harass Celebrities: Bombay High Court On Quashing Journalist's Complaint

Judicial process shouldn’t be a means for needless harassment of a celebrity to satisfy the vendetta of a complainant who assumed he was insulted, the Bombay High Court observed in its detailed order quashing a case against actor Salman Khan and his bodyguard.

“The words uttered in despair or a gesture, howsoever frightful, by itself would not attract Section 504 unless it exhibit an intentional insult and provide a cause for provocation, to any person and which is of such a nature, that the other person would revolt in a manner, which would break the public peace or result in commission of any offence,” it observed.

In his private complaint before the Magistrate Journalist Ashok Pandey had alleged that Khan snatched his mobile phone while cycling on a Mumbai-street when some media persons started clicking his photos. The actor argued with him and then threatened him, he added.

Last year the Magistrate ordered a police investigation under Section 202 of the CrPC and subsequently issued process and summons. Salman had approached the High Court against the summons.

Justice Bharati Dangre observed “The judicial process need not be a means for needless harassment merely because the Accused is a well-known celebrity and without adhering to the procedure of law, he shall not be subjected to unnecessary oppression at the hands of a complainant, who set in the machinery into motion to satisfy his vendetta and assumed that he was insulted by the cine star.”

Justice Dangre observed that the Magistrate’s order suffered from two glaring discrepancies; firstly, the incorrect invocation of Sections 504 (intentional insult) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of IPC since the complaint was an afterthought without the ingredients of the sections. And, secondly, the Magistrate has failed to follow the procedural mandate, before taking cognizance of the complaint, which requires the complainant to be examined.

The journalist had alleged Section 504 of the IPC was applicable as when Khan started snatching the mobile phone he informed Khan he was a journalist and recording the video with consent, however, Khan allegedly said “Doesn’t Matter.”

“The words uttered in despair or a gesture, howsoever frightful, by itself would not attract Section 504 unless it exhibit an intentional insult and provide a cause for provocation, to any person and which is of such a nature, that the other person would revolt in a manner, which would break the public peace or result in commission of any offence,” the judge observed.

She further noted that Section 506 of the IPC was inapplicable as there was no threat given to the complainant.

On procedural lapses the judge noted that unless the complainant was examined under Section 200 of CrPC, the Magistrate could not have exercised the power under Sections 202, 203 or 204 (issuing process).

“I would be justified in quashing the proceedings, since it’s continuation would amount to abuse of process of Court and quashing of the same would otherwise serve the end of justice,” she observed.

Before Justice Dangre, Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda argued that Salman Khan only asked his bodyguard to stop Pandey from taking any pictures.

He argued that on the date of the incident, April 24, itself a complaint was sent to the police in which Pandey alleged that his phone was snatched. However, in the criminal complaint to the Magistrate, there were several improvements.

On an earlier date Justice Revati Mohite Dere stayed the summons citing improvements in the complainant's statement. She said that being a journalist, the complainant wouldn't have kept quiet and all his allegations would have reflected in the first complaint itself.

Background

Pandey had initially filed a complaint alleging offences under sections 324, 392,426,506(ii) and 34 of the IPC and sought for an FIR to be registered u/s 156(3). However, the court turned down the request for an FIR but directed investigation u/s 202 of the CrPC to ascertain if there are sufficient grounds to proceed against Khan and his bodyguard.

The police report claimed that only offences under sections 504 and 506 of the IPC were made out and process was issued accordingly. While Section 506(ii) of the IPC is non-bailable, punishment under section 506 of the IPC is for a term which may extend upto two years, or with fine, or both.

Metropolitan Magistrate RR Khan relied on a police report in the matter, which stated that prima facie offences under Indian Penal Code Sections 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) and 506 (criminal intimidation) are made out against the accused. The summons is returnable on April 5, 2022.

"Keeping in view the self-speaking material on record, positive police report u/s 202 of CrPC and other material on record, there is sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused persons for offences u/s 504, 506 of the IPC. Hence, I am satisfied to issue process against the accused persons through the following order," the Andheri court order read.