Delhi High Court Quashes Cognizance Taken By Trial Court Against Social Activist Shabnam Hashmi In FIR Over CAA Protest During COVID-19

The Delhi High Court has quashed a trial court order taking cognizance against social activist Shabnam Hashmi in an FIR registered by the Delhi Police over the protest against the Citizen Amendment Act (CAA) in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Justice Navin Chawla quashed the trial court order passed on October 08, 2021, and proceedings emanating therefrom.

“However, it is made clear that the respondent shall be at liberty to file a fresh complaint, if so advised. In case such complaint is filed, the same would be considered in accordance with law,” the court said.

The FIR against Hashmi was registered in 2020 for the offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It was alleged that in a video that surfaced on Hashmi's social media account on X (formerly Twitter), she along with some other individuals were found walking with one banner against the CAA. As per the FIR, Hashmi was found holding the banner.

Advocates Soutik Banerjee and Devika Tulsiani appearing for Hashmi submitted that in terms of Section 195 of CrPC, cognizance for an offence under Section 188 of IPC can be taken only on a complaint in writing of the concerned Public Servant or some other Public Servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.

The counsels further submitted that cognizance cannot be taken of the Final Report.

On the other hand, APP Aman Usman appearing for the State submitted that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate can take cognizance not only of the Final Report but also of the document attached thereto.

Perusing Section 195(1) of CrPC, Justice Chawla said that a court can take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 188 of the IPC only on the complaint in writing of the Public Servant concerned or some other Public Servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.

“The present petition presents similar facts as the above cases. In the present case also, the FIR was registered alleging violation of the Prohibitory Order…issued under Section 144 of the CrPC by the ACP Dwarka. However, on completion of investigation, instead of filing a complaint in terms of Section 195 CrPC, the Final Report was filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 08.10.2021, took cognizance of this Final Report,” the court said.

It added: “In the present case, there is no challenge to the registration of FIR. The challenge is to the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate taking cognizance of the Final Report, which is not a complaint under Section 195 CrPC.”

Title: SHABNAM HASHMI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 150