Raising 'Fascist BJP' Slogan Doesn't Constitute Any Offence: Madras High Court

Justice P Dhanabal of the Madurai bench noted that Sophia had only raised the slogan as “Fascist BJP” and those words did not constitute any offence and were trivial in nature. Further, the court noted that there was nothing in the chargesheet to attract the offence of public nuisance under Section 290 of IPC.

“The First Information Report and the charge sheet discloses that the petitioner only raised slogan as 'Fascist B.J.P' and those words do not constitute any offence and it is trivial in nature . Therefore as discussed supra, the charge sheet in S.T.C.No. 324 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thoothukudi is liable to be quashed,” the order reads.

Present State President of Tamil Nadu BJP and intervenor in the case K Annamalai contended that the police failed to register a case under the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Safety of Civil Aviation Act 1982. However, the court noted that the said Act will not be attracted since no violence was committed by Sophia and mere uttering of word was not likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft.

“In this Case no any violence committed by the petitioner and mere uttering of the said word is not likely to endanger the safety of any aircraft and the complaint was not given by the aircraft alleging to attract the said provision” the court said.

Police Failed To Follow Procedure

Interestingly, the Court also noted that the FIR was initially registered under Section 209 IPC (Public Nuisance) and Section 75 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act (Penalty for drunkenness or riotous or indecent behavior in public places), both being non-cognizable offences. However, Section 505(1)(b), which is a cognizable offence, was later hand-written into the printed FIR without any averments in the complaint.

Noting this, the Magistrate had also refused to remand Sophia for the offence under Section 505(1)(b) of IPC and had remanded her only for the offences under Section 290 of IPC and Section 75(1)(c) of Tamil Nadu City Police Act.

The High Court said that once remand under Section 505 was rejected, the police had a duty to follow the procedure under Section 155 CrPC. However, in the present case, the procedures were not followed. The court added that merely including Section 505 IPC in the FIR, without any materials in the complaint, was not sufficient to deviate from the procedure contemplated under law.

“As per Section 155(4) of Cr.P.C., Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable. However the complaint does not disclose any cognizable offence and mere inclusion of cognizable offence for the reasons best known to them will not affect the procedures under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. Once the procedures under Sections 155(1)and (2) of Cr.P.C are mandatory as per the above said judgments submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, mere inclusion of cognizable offence without any materials in the complaint, it does not mean that the procedures mandated under Section 155(1)and (2) of Cr.P.C would not attracted. Therefore mere inclusion of 505(1)(b) of IPC in the First Information Report is not sufficient to deviate from the procedure mandated under Sections 155(1)and (2) of Cr.P.C,” the court said.

The court also noted that Thoothukudi District, where the FIR was registered, was not listed under the Tamil Nadu City Police Act and thus, Section 75 of the Act could not be invoked. Thus, the court observed that the charge against Sophia, to that extend was also liable to be quashed.

Thus, finding that the act done by Sophia did not attract any offence, the court allowed her plea to quash the proceedings.

Case Title: Lois Sophia @ Layis Shobia v. Inspector of Police and Others