Recently, the Delhi High Court quashed a trial court order taking cognizance of a 2020 First Information Report (FIR) filed against social activist Shabnam Hashmi. The said FIR had been registered by the Delhi Police over the anti-Citizen Amendment Act (CAA) that had taken place in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Notably, the trial court had issued the order taking cognizance of the FIR on October 8, 2021.
Passing the quashing order of the cognizance taken by the trial court and the proceedings that had emancipated from the same, the high court bench of Justice Navin Chawla clarified that the respondent has been permitted by the court a fresh complaint if necessary. As per a report in LiveLaw, the bench had stated “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.”
It is essential to note that judgment in the said case had been reserved on February 2, 2024.
Brief information about the case:
As per the FIR filed by the Delhi Police against Hashmi was registered in 2020 under Section 188 (Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Allegations raised against her were that in a video that had surfaced on Hashmi’s social media account on ‘X’ (formerly Twitter), she could be seen walking with banners against the CAA along with some other individuals. As per the FIR, Hashmi was found holding the banner.
Arguments raised in the court:
Advocates Soutik Banerjee and Devika Tulsiani, representing Hashmi in the said case, submitted that in terms of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), cognizance for an offence under Section 188 of IPC can be only be taken on a complaint made in writing by the concerned Public Servant or some other Public Servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. It was further submitted by the counsels that cognizance could not be taken of the Final Report.
On the other hand, Additional Public Prosecutor Aman Usman, representing the State, had argued that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate could have taken cognizance not only of the Final Report but also of the document attached thereto.
Observations made by the Court:
Based on the submissions of by both the parties, Justice Chawla perused 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.
As per the LiveLaw report, the bench stated “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 bench further added that “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.”
With this, the bench of Justice Chawla quashed the order of the trial court and permitted the respondents to file a fresh case following the procedure established by law if required.
Related:
moves High Court seeking videos of anti-CAA protests
Karnataka HC: Sedition charges quashed against Shaheen school for performing anti-CAA skit