Court rejected Arvind Kejriwal’s request for a discharge in a criminal case for alleged hate speech against the BJP and Congress: Allahabad High Court
APPLICATION U/S 482 NO.42 OF 2023
ARVIND KEJRIWAL V. STATE OF U.P.
BENCH: JUSTICE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN
FACTS OF THE CASE
Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan’s bench was hearing the application challenging the Sessions Judge’s judgment and order, which upheld the trial Court’s decision to deny the applicant’s request for discharge.
In this instance, Flying Squad Magistrate One, Prem Chandra filed an FIR under Section 125 of the 1951 Representation of the People Act, claiming that the accused applicant had violated the Model Code of Conduct by declaring publicly that “whoever will vote Congress, that person will be disloyal towards the country.” Additionally, whoever votes for Bhajpa will be disloyal to the country and will not be forgiven by even God. (Translated from Hindi)
In accordance with Section 125 of the Act of 1951, the trial court summoned the accused.
A petition has been submitted by the applicant under Section 482 Cr. P.C. asking for prayer to end the case in its entirety. Before the revisional court, the petitioner challenged the order that the applicant’s discharge application had been rejected by the trial court. The revisional court then dismissed the revision.
The bench was to consider the following issue:
Whether the order passed by the Sessions Judge needs interference or not?
The High Court ruled that a Chief Minister of a single state should not say anything that has a hidden meaning or sentence. According to the speech, Congress voters would be referred to as “Gaddar of the country,” whereas Bhartiya Janta Party voters would not be forgiven by “Khuda.” Although the terms “Khuda,” “Bhagwan,” and “God” all refer to the same being, the applicant’s intention to use the term “Khuda” only to refer to voters who voted for the Bhartiya Janta Party and not the Congress must be made clear during the trial.
The bench stated that they had no idea how such speech could have any social value or be considered a propagation of ideas. This Court may not invoke its inherent power under Section 482 Cr to examine or test the integrity of the charge because credible evidence to that effect is said to have been collected during the investigation and the charge sheet has been filed. After reviewing Section 125 of the Act of 1951, the P.C. High Court stated, “………..if the feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens of India is promoted, that shall be treated as an offence under such section and punishable under Section 125 of the Act of 1951.” The applicant’s statement is not exactly straightforward because he refers to one group of voters as “Gaddar of the country” and another group of voters as “Khuda shall not pardon them.” The bench noted that the apex court has not stayed the proceedings pending against the applicant before the trial court; only his presence has been dispensed with keeping the appeal pending; therefore, the trial/proceedings of the case may not be stayed or quashed. Prima facie, it appears that he is threatening the later voters in the name of Khuda, knowing full well that if he uses the term ‘Khuda,’ some set of voters belonging
JUDGEMENT
The High Court stated that this Court had the authority granted by Section 482 Cr. The power of the P.C. is built into the system to safeguard the interests of justice and prevent court procedures from being abused. Similar to Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, this is an extraordinary power of the High Court. However, this Court must exercise much greater caution before exercising this power in order to ensure that the litigant would not suffer irreparable harm or loss. It would be blatant injustice and an abuse of the legal system. As a result, the Supreme Court has observed in a number of cases that this power should only be used sparingly and with extreme caution.
The bench denied the application based on the foregoing.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY AJAY ADITHIYAA N