The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday quashed the FIRs registered against BJP leader Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga and former AAP leader Kumar Vishwas, observing that non-interferece of courts would result in miscarriage of justice.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara pronounced separate orders on two petitions filed individually by the accused.
Invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC, the High Court quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioners and said all pending applications against the accused stand closed.
Punjab Police had booked Bagga on charges of making provocative statements, promoting enmity and criminal intimidation. A case was registered against him under Sections 153-A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place, etc.), 505 (whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of IPC.
Also Read: There can be no parity in rejection of a bail application: Allahabad High Court
As per Punjab Police, FIR was registered against Bagga on a complaint of AAP leader from Mohali Sunny Ahluwalia.
Punjab Police said in a statement after the arrest that Bagga had been served five notices under Sections 41 A CrPC to join the investigation on April 9, 11, 15, 22 and 28. However, the accused did not join the probe, leading to his arrest.
An FIR had been registered against Vishwas for charges of hate speech and unlawful assembly, after he accused Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal of being a separatist.
The former AAP leader had given interview to media channels on February 16 and 17, 2022 during the Assembly elections in Punjab, claiming that Kejriwal had once told him that he would become the chief minister or the prime minister of an independent State or country.
It was alleged that due to the statements made by Vishwas, unknown persons had wrongfully restrained the complainant (belonging to AAP) on April 12.
Vishwas was booked under Sections 153 A (attempt to create communal disharmony), 505 (attempt to incite public mischief), 341 (wrongful restraint), 116 (abetting an offence), 323 (causing hurt), 143 (unlawful assembly) 147 (rioting) and 120B (criminal conspiracy).
The High Court observed that the material on record showed that Vishwas had merely exercised his right to free speech, which was an essential part of democracy.
Justice Chitkara highlighted the importance of free speech invoking the first speech given by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru to independent India.
The High Court observed that at the stroke of midnight, apart from liberty, India also got azadi of choice and azadi of free speech and of expression. It said the country took a great leap forward by endorsing democracy, ushering equality and dignity, ensuring infinite opportunities to preserve and spearhead this fantastic diversity till eternity.
As per the Single Bench, this was a fit case for this court to prevent the abuse of the process of law because the allegations made in the complaint and the probe did not contain any material, which even remotely linked the incidents with the interviews of the petitioner.
Vishwas was represented by Senior Advocates Randeep Rai and Chetan Mittal, along with Advocates Mayank Aggarwal and Rubina Virmani.
Senior Advocate Puneet Bali, Additional Advocates General Prashant Manchanda and Ferry Sofat, along with Deputy Advocate General HS Sitta and Advocate Vaibhav, appeared for the Punjab government.
The complainant was represented by Advocate Surjeet Bhadu.