Kangana Ranaut's Tweets Intended To Generate Hatred Towards Maharashtra Govt: Complainant Opposes Quashing Of FIR Against Kangana & Sister For Alleged Tweets

The reply is filed by casting director Munawar Ali Sayyed, who had sought the FIR to be registered for offences punishable under Sections 153 A, 295 A, 124 A r/w 34 of IPC, for allegedly trying to create a communal divide through their social media.

Sayyed has alleged that the sisters deliberately made the tweets to bring hatred and excite disaffection towards the Maharashtra Government.

"Through the twitter messages both the Applicants have sought to generate, engineer and orchestrate a feeling of disaffection, hatred and enmity including disloyalty towards the Government of Maharashtra which is established by law in India," Sayyed submitted.

The reply added,

"Needless to say that circulation of such offensive tweets disclosing the intention and tendency of the applicants to create a situation of public order and also creating an environment of an environment prejudicial to public tranquillity amongst her 3 Million followers on her twitter account was done with the obvious intention to bring the present government of Maharashtra into hatred, contempt as well as to excite or attempt to excite disaffection towards the said government.

Some of the tweets of the Petitioner are provocative and intended to reach a large segment of people on the social platform of twitter account with the intention that such words used by her would lead to use criminal force and violence and knowing full well that the likely participants in such activity of criminal force and violence against any religion, race, language, regional group or caste and community for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear, alarm and feeling of insecurity amongst such members of such religion, race, language, regional group or caste and community.

By no stretch of imagination can these tweets be termed as an expression of disapprobation and disapproval of the measures of the Government of Maharashtra with the view of obtaining their alteration by lawful means without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection."

Background

The Bandra Police booked the Ranaut and Chandel for allegedly trying to create a communal divide through their social media, after a direction in that behalf made by Bandra Magistrate Court under Section 156(3) of CrPC.

The complainant had alleged that the sisters are maliciously bringing religion in almost all their tweets, to create hatred and communal tensions between Hindus and Muslims.

In this regard, he referred to instances wherein Kangana and Rangoli's tweets were allegedly communal. Her tweets on lynching of Hindu Sadhus at Palghar, calling the BMC "Babur Sena" after her office was demolished, claiming that she is the first person to make a movie on Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and Rani Laxmi bai of Jhansi in a "Islam dominated industry", blaming Jamaatis for spreading Corona virus etc are cited by the complainant alleging that Kanagana tried to create hatred and communal tensions between Hindus and Muslims deliberately.

In the instant case, the sisters contended that the magistrate did not justify how any of their tweets promote enmity between different groups or act prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between groups, and sought quashing of the said FIR.

No infirmity in Magistrate's order for registration of FIR

The Respondent has submitted that while exercising its powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., a Magistrate is not required to justify the ingredients of the penal section to be made out in the order.

"The finding in the order under section156 (3) Cr. P.C. is required to be in the form of a prima facie satisfaction that the cognizable offences appear to have been committed. The entire exercise post an order under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. is within the jurisdiction and prerogative of the investigation officer who would commence investigation by following the procedure under Section 156 Cr. P.C.," the Respondent submitted.

The affidavit added,

"The entire exercise of investigation by the investigating officer is to facilitate collection of evidence to show that the charge made out in the Complaint under 156 (3) Cr.P.C was justified. In other words, it is a prerogative of the investigating officer alone to collect evidence to prove that the acts of omission and commission carved out under application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C were actually offences with which the Applicants have been charged in the instant case. There is no requirement of the Ld. Magistrate to record any justification with regard to the ingredients of the offence."

Further defending invocation of Sedition charges against the sisters, the Respondent submitted,

"Although, no disturbance is caused or brought about by use of such words or any feeling of disaffection is created, it is sufficient for the purposes of Section 124-A of IPC that the words used are calculated to excite feelings of ill will against the government established by law in India and to hold it up to hatred and contempt of the people and that they used with the intention to create such feeling."

Inter alia, he submitted that once an FIR is registered on the issuance of orders and directions under section 156 (3) CrPC by the Magistrate, the cause of action arising out of such an order of the Magistrate cannot be questioned.

He reasoned,

"the prima facie satisfaction of the Ld. Magistrate requiring the criminal law set in to motion, cannot be retracted or recalled and the due process of law has to be followed on commencement of such investigation after registration of FIR. The said due process of law would be either in the form of submission of final report under 173 (3) Cr. P.C or an option to the Investigating Officer to subject the investigation to either A, B or C summary classification in which case no final report under 173 Cr. P.C is required to be filed, as the case is closed as classified."

Reliance was placed on Ashish Nandi v. State of Delhi, 2010 SCC online Delhi 2989, where the Delhi High Court, while considering the scope of powers under 226 of the Constitution of India on the point of quashing of FIR, observed that such power under 226 should not be exercise to stifle a legitimate prosecution and the Court should not give a premature decision in a case where process of investigation was at a nascent stage.

Seizure of Computer resources

Ranaut and Chandel had stated in their petition that the Magistrate mechanically ordered search and seizure of their computer systems.

Defending the same, the Respondent submitted,

"the primary evidence in the instant case is the computer resource or computer system which is used by the Applicants for the commission of offences. It is these computer resources and computer system which would require to be search and seized. The explanation which the Applicants have sought in their Petition under Reply while referring to the Ld. Magistrate allegedly mechanically ordering search and seizure is available here from justifying the requirement of a certificate under 65 B of the Evidence Act,1872 for which the computer resource and computer system involved and engaged by the Applicants would required to be taken up and seized for investigation."

The affidavit has been filed through Advocates Rizwan Merchant and Associates.