[Tablighi Jamaat] Delhi HC Issues Notice In Plea Seeking Quashing Of Second FIR, After Entering Into A Plea Bargain For First FIR

The matter was heard by Justice Anup J. Bhambhani who issued notice to the Respondents and sought for a status report to be filed before the next date.

The Petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Rebecca M. John, along with Advocates Ashima Mandla and Mandakini Singh.

John submitted to the Court that the first FIR had been registered on 31^st March, by the Crime Branch against the leader of the Markaz and his associates. Subsequently, a petition had been moved on behalf of 955 foreigners who had been chargesheeted; out of them, 911 had pleaded guilty under plea bargain. Accordingly, the first FIR was closed.

However, since then, it had been found that a new FIR had been registered on identical offences.

To this, Justice Bhambhani raised the question as to what would happen to the case of TT Antony v. State of Kerala if they were being prosecuted on identical offences. John agreed, and further added that it was also against Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

John also submitted that though the offences were exactly the same, the difference was in the location. Justice Bhambhani stated that that would constitute a separate offence. To this, John explained why that would not be the case by narrating the sequence of events.

"What I'm saying here is that the religious congregation at Markaz was from 10^th to 15^th March. On 22^nd, was the Janta curfew. On 19^th, Government of India suspended international flights. On 23^rd, Section 144 was imposed. On 24^th, there was a national lockdown. On 25^th, FIR No. 63 of 2020 was registered. The FIR was lodged the very next day by the Crime Branch. The ground was that we came on valid visas, but we were found doing unlawful activities. We were FOUND in a masjid; where could we have gone?"

John also contended that most of the Petitioners had tested negative, and they just wanted to leave at this point. In some cases, Embassies had also stepped in, such as the Malaysian Embassy.

Justice Bhambhani, at this juncture, noted that the offences alleged in the first FIR were the same as the second FIR, and the finding of the Petitioners at different locations was "neither here not there".

John further averred that the accused that no choice, but to plead guilty and they could no longer stay in India. Additionally, the State should also have informed them about the multiple FIRs, which the State had failed to do so. They had further failed to bring up the existence of the multiple FIRs even before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at the Saket District Court.

Justice Bhambhani agreed with this submission and informed the Counsel for the Delhi Police, "Should have informed them there are other FIRs lodged against them. There are two more cases where people are stranded in Kolkata. Must never give any accused the impression that we, as an institution, have treated them unfairly."

Accordingly, Justice Bhambhani dictated the Order, noting "John points out that the offence alleged in the second FIR is the same as that in the first; and all that is said in the second FIR is that the Petitioners were found to be staying in Jama Masjid in New Seelampur. John submits that even in the first FIR, never did the State inform the Trial Court that another FIR was pending against the Petitioners, nor were the Petitioners made aware of the second one , and that this is gross abuse of the process of law. Due to the second FIR, the Petitioners are not able to return to their countries, despite having pleaded guilty, paid the fines. Issue notice".

Three petitions in total have been moved on behalf of the Tablighi Jamaat foreign nationals before the Delhi High Court. The third plea was listed before Justice Anu Malhotra and Advocate Ashima Mandla requested for the same to be place before Justice Bhambhani; the same was allowed.

The instant plea, drafted by Singh and Mandla, states that the case is "a classic example of case wherein unsubstantiated allegations have been embellished and exaggerated with most of falsehood added to a grain of truth. Unless this Hon'ble Court protects the honour and dignity of the Petitioner by intervention at this stage, even his acquittal will not wipe out the ignominy and stigma caused by ordeal of facing criminal trial".

The plea goes on to contend that a second FIR, arising from similar cause of action and territorial jurisdiction, has been registered against the Petitioners, and therefore, cannot be entertained in light of judicial precedents and statutory provisions.

The Petitioners were not informed about the existence of the second FIR, the plea submits, and they had already entered into plea bargaining and paid fines for the first FIR. Further, deportation orders had also been signed by the CMM of the concerned Trial Court. However, due to the second FIR, they are unable to fly back home.

Matter is now listed on 10^th August.