Writ Petition No. 824 of 2013. Case: Akbaruddin Owaisi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 824 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Sri M.D. Ismail, Adv. And For Respondents: Sri Mekala Srinivas Yadav, Sri N. Harinath, Sri K. Anthony Reddy, Sri S. Sri Ram and Sri K. Jangoji, Advs. |
| Judges | Ramesh Ranganathan, J. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 154, 154(1), 156, 156(1), 156(3), 157, 157(1), 159, 161, 161(3), 162, 169, 170, 173, 173(2), 173(2)(d), 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 186(b), 187, 190, 190(1)(a), 196, 196(1), 196(1)(a), 198, 199, 2, 2(d), 2(h), 2(n), 2(s), 2(wa), 20, 201, 202, 210, 220, 227, 228, 313, 39, 3... |
| Judgement Date | July 19, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India) |
Order:
Ramesh Ranganathan, J.
-
Does Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter called "Cr.P.C.") permit registration of two separate complaints in two different police stations for offences arising out of one occurrence/event/incident? If so, does the Cr.P.C. permit parallel and simultaneous investigations being conducted thereinto? If, on the other hand, the Cr.P.C. does not permit two parallel investigations by police officers of two different police stations, for offences arising out of the same incident, can the Station House officer or the Magistrate transfer the complaint registered in one police station to the other for investigation even if both the police stations have territorial jurisdiction to register and investigate the said complaint? In such a case, should the transferred complaint be treated as a Section 162 Cr.P.C. statement by the Station House officer of the police station to which it is transferred? These are some of the questions which arise for consideration in this Writ Petition. The factual matrix, in which these questions arise, needs to be noted first. The petitioner delivered a speech on 08.12.2012 at Nizamabad which resulted in a public outcry. Crime No. 1 of 2013, for offences under Sections 153, 153A and 295A IPC, was registered on 02.01.2013 by the third respondent at Nizamabad. In the meanwhile the ninth respondent filed a private complaint before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad which was referred, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., to the fifth respondent who registered the said complaint as Crime No. 5 of 2013 for the offence under Section 153A IPC, and issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. asking him to appear on 10.01.2013. For the same or a similar speech delivered by him, several other complaints also appear to have been lodged against the petitioner in different Courts/police stations.
-
Another speech delivered by the petitioner on 22.12.2012, at Nirmal in Adilabad District, resulted in Crime No. 1 of 2013 being registered by the fourth respondent on 02.01.2013 for offences under Sections 153A and 121 IPC. While the relief sought for in this Writ Petition includes a direction to the police officers not to register any further FIR against the petitioner in relation to his speech at Nizamabad and Nirmal on 08.12.2012 and 22.12.2012 respectively, Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, Learned Counsel, would submit that the petitioner does not seek an adjudication, in this writ petition, on the validity of the several complaints registered in respect of his speech at Nirmal, and it would suffice if the Court were to examine the legality or otherwise of the second FIR registered as Crime No. 5 of 2013, in relation to the petitioner's speech at Nizamabad, for which a complaint had already been registered by the third respondent as Crime No. 1 of 2013, even if the 5th respondent is presumed to have territorial jurisdiction to register the said FIR. The submission of the Learned Counsel, in short, is that, since the complaint was already registered as Crime No. 1 of 2013 by the third respondent, a second FIR in respect of the very same incident (speech) is barred; and, consequently, while investigation into Crime No. 1 of 2013 can be continued by the third respondent, Crime No. 5 of 2013 before the fifth respondent must be quashed.
-
The petitioner, a member of a registered state political party, is also a Member of the A.P. State Legislative Assembly. He spoke at an assembled gathering at Nizamabad on 08.12.2012 which he claims had touched upon various social and political aspects, including those which concerned the minority community. In his writ affidavit the petitioner states that he does not bear any ill-will, grudge or negative emotion or sentiment against any community and believes that all citizens, irrespective of their faith or religion, must be treated as equals; on 28.12.2012 an article was published by a media house selectively highlighting parts of his speech, without placing the whole speech delivered by him in context; this article resulted in the news getting viral; video parts of the speech were picked up by the electronic media, posted on the internet and aired; on 24.12.2012 he left for medical treatment to the United Kingdom; as a result of the media trial against him, pressure was mounted for initiating action; only as a populist reaction, the third respondent had registered Crime No. 1 of 2013; and thereafter, on a private complaint being filed by the ninth respondent, the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad had referred the said complaint to the fifth respondent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was registered as Crime No. 5 of 2013. The petitioner's reference to several other complaints, lodged against him, pursuant to his speech at Nirmal on 22.12.2012, need no mention as its legality or otherwise has not been put in issue in the present writ proceedings.
-
The petitioner would contend that the 5th respondent should have caused an enquiry, whether or not similar complaints were pending, before registering FIR No. 5 of 2013; registering multiple FIRs against him for the very same incident is arbitrary, irrational and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; it also affects his right to liberty under Article 21, and his right of free movement under Article 19, of the Constitution of India as he would be constrained to move from one police station to another as is evident from the notice issued to him by the fifth respondent under Section 41-A Cr.P.C.
-
In his counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the second respondent, the Additional Director General of Police, Hyderabad would submit that on 05.12.2012 Sri Nayeemuddin and his followers, belonging to the political party to which the petitioner belongs, had approached Nizamabad police station and had sought permission for a public meeting to be conducted on 08.12.2012 from 8.00 P.M. police force was deployed and bandobust was entrusted on 08.12.2012 from 2.00 P.M. onwards; several persons, including the petitioner, addressed the gathering which concluded at 12.00 midnight; and the compact disc, containing a video of the meeting, showed that the petitioner had delivered a provocative speech which was likely to promote enmity between different communities. After referring to certain portions of the speech, it is stated that the petitioner had deliberately and maliciously intended to outrage religious feelings by insulting the religious beliefs of others, and to create communal disturbances in the country; he had abetted and instigated muslims to wage war against the elected Government of India, and had sought to promote enmity between different religious groups; such acts were prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony; a suo motu case was, therefore, registered in larger public interest by the third respondent as Crime No. 1 of 2013, for offences under Sections 153, 153A and 295A IPC, on 02.01.2013 at 23.00 hrs and investigation was taken up; during the course of investigation, the DVD was sealed and packed in the presence of panch witnesses; the petitioner had deliberately and intentionally evaded the notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. only to avoid investigation; he was taken into custody on 08.01.2013 at 17.30 hrs in connection with his speech at Nirmal which had resulted in Crime No. 1 of 2013 being registered against him by the fourth respondent; he was sent to judicial remand; investigation is not yet complete; some more witnesses are required to be examined; the specimen voice of the petitioner, recorded in the open Court of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, was sent to FSL, Chandigarh for comparison of the speech recorded in the seized DVD; as soon as a report is received from FSL, further action would be taken; on the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad referring it to him, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the fifth respondent had registered the complaint; a second complaint in regard to the same incident is maintainable more so as the complaint in Crime No. 5 of 2013 was not made by the complainant in Crime No. 1 of 2013 before the Nizamabad police station; the complainant, in Crime No. 5 of 2013, stated that his feelings were hurt after watching the speech, given by the petitioner, on T.V. and the contents of both the complaints differ from each other.
-
In his counter affidavit, the eleventh respondent would state that registration of multiple FIRs/complaints does not violate the petitioner's fundamental rights; no blanket order can be issued to the respondents prohibiting registration of FIRs against the petitioner; the petitioner's speech at Nizamabad and Nirmal, coupled with his body language, were intended to provoke a section of society to wage war against the government; the petitioner had abused Hindu Gods in India as a whole; a prima facie case was made out before the Learned Magistrate who had referred the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. no law prohibits registration of more than one FIR in respect of the same occurrence; though the occurrence may be one, aggrieved victims may be more; each aggrieved person has the right to lodge a complaint in respect of an offence, in so far as his grievance is concerned, even if it arises out of the same occurrence; the complaints filed against the petitioner are different and distinct, and are maintainable on their own, despite the fact that the occurrence is one and the same; and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India has no application.
-
In his reply affidavit, the petitioner would state that he is aggrieved by the action of the respondents, in registering multiple complaints/FIRs in respect of one alleged occurrence, which violated his constitutional and fundamental rights; he did not deliver statements likely to promote enmity between different communities; in this writ...
To continue reading
Request your trial