[Breaking] Sunday Hearing: Vinod Dua files a plea in Apex Court seeking protection from arrest in relation to FIRs against him

(Judicial Quest News Network)

A Supreme Court Bench headed by Justices UU Lalit, Mohan M Shantanagoudar, and Vineet Saran will convene on Sunday, June 14 to hear an urgent plea filed by journalist Vinod Dua who is seeking protection against coercive action in multiple FIRs.

An FIR was filed against Dua in Kumarsain Police Station in Shimla based on BJP District President Ajay Shayam, Complaint, charged under IPC Section 124A, among other charges. He was also asked to be present in Kumarsain police station by Saturday 10AM.

According to the Complainant Ajay Shayam, Dua;s accusations against Prime Minister narendra Modi of using death and terror attacks for vote bank politics led to instigation against toppling of the Government.

Delhi High Court had earlier had stayed an investigation into a case against Dua in connection with his show.

While holding that there is no Prime facie case against Dua to warrant the registration of FIR, the Single bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani noted that there was no allegation that any adverse consequences, in terms of enmity, hatred o ill-will, much less any violence or breach of peace, occurred as a consequence of the webcast.

The Court in its orders stated that “On a prima-facie view, in the present case, the following aspects emerge from the record:

• That there is substantial unexplained delay in filing of the complaint and registration of the FIR inasmuch as the date of the alleged offence is 11.03.2020 whereas the complaint came to be made only on 03.06.2020 leading to registration of FIR on 04.06.2020, which is a delay of almost 3 months. Such delay would have required a preliminary enquiry as per the mandate of Lalita Kumari (cf. para 120.6 of judgment, supra) ; W.P.(Crl.) No.895/2020
• That even after registration of the FIR on 04.06.2020, as per the statement made by counsel for respondent No.1, no substantial investigation has been carried-out except for issuance of notice to YouTube; and the petitioner has not been called to join investigation. He says, in fact that he learned of the registration of the FIR through social media and from the public domain;
•  That what the complainant alleges was said in the webcast, is not what appears in the transcript of the webcast ; and to that extent no cognizable offence is disclosed on the basis of the material cited by the complainant warranting registration of an FIR as per Lalita Kumari (cf. para 120.2 of the judgment, supra), Muniswamy (cf. para 7 of the judgment, supra), Bhajan Lal (cf. para 102(2) of the judgment, supra) and Devendrappa (cf. para 8 of judgment, supra) ;
•  That naming the three persons in the webcast and questioning the police inaction against those persons, is based on what was recorded in the Division Bench order dated 26.02.2020 in W.P.(Crl.) No.565/2020; and therefore appears to fall within the exception to section 505, at least on first blush;
•  That there is no allegation that any adverse consequences, in terms of enmity, hatred or ill-will, muchless any violence or breach of peace, occurred as a consequence of the webcast;
•  That the ingredients and gravamen of the offence under section 505(2) do not seem to be made-out as required per Manzar Sayeed Khan (cf. para 18 of the judgment, supra) ; W.P.(Crl.) No.895/2020
• That in view of the above factual picture, it prima-facie appears that the registration of the FIR requires to be examined on the touchstone of the law as laid down in the above-referred judicial precedents, since the steps taken so far by the State do not appear to be in consonance with such law and do not inspire much confidence.

The FIR which was filed by Mr. Naveen Kumar, complained about a section of Vind Dua’s You Tube show which had talked about the riots that had happened in northeast District of Delhi.