Top Court quashes FIR registered u/s 153A & 504 IPC against  Editor-in-Chief relating to publication of Facebook news post
Justices B.R. Gavai & Sandeep Mehta [19-03-2024]

Read Order: SHIV PRASAD SEMWAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS [SC- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1708 OF 2024]

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, March 20, 2024: While observing that there was no reference to groups of people or communities in the news article published on Parvatjan’s news portal and the publication only mentioned that the complainant had encroached upon public land where the foundation stone laying ceremony was proposed, the Supreme Court has quashed an FIR registered against the Editor-in-Chief Shiv Prasad Semwal.

The facts of the case were such that respondent No.3-Rajeev Savara owned land admeasuring 1.196 hectaressituated on the National Highway No. 7 at village Singthali in Uttarakhand. He had formed a trust by the name, Savara Foundation of which he is the founder and also Chairman of the Board of Trustees.The complainant-respondent had planned a foundation stone laying ceremony of Matra Ashraya to be done by the Chief Minister of Uttarakhand. The event was scheduled on 20th March, 2020.

It was alleged in the complaint that in order to blackmail the complainant, the accused named in the aforesaid FIR, acting in collusion, got published a news article in the e-newspaper Parvatjan, edition dated 17th March, 2020 wherein it was portrayed that the land on which the foundation stone was proposed to be laid was Government land which had been unlawfully occupied/encroached upon by the complainant. The complainant alleged that even his invitation was published in the defamatory news article. It was further alleged that the imputations were made in the news article with the intent and knowledge that the same would irreparably tarnish the reputation of the complainant and his standing in the public domain.

The article was published without undertaking proper fact-finding exercise which as per the complainant, would have conclusively and indisputably established that he had not encroached upon Government land and that the plot in question was lawfully owned and occupied by the complainant. As per the complainant, the act of publication of the mischievous and malicious news article by the accused invited invocation of the offences punishable under Sections 153A, 500, 501, 504 read with Sections 34 and 120B IPC.Based on the said complaint an FIR came to be registered.

The appellant had approached the Top Court challenging the order of the Uttarakhand High Court whereby Criminal Writ Petition preferred by the appellant for assailing FIR was dismissed.

The appellant urged that there was no communal, caste, religion, race or place of birthbased imputation in the news article published on the online news portal of Parvatjan. Thus, ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 153A IPC wer not made out from the FIR. It was also submitted that if at all, the complainant was aggrieved that the news article had tarnished his image in the society or had defamed him in the eyes of the public at large, the appropriate remedy for him would have been to file a complaint for defamation.

The entire case as set out in the impugned FIR was based on the allegation that the Facebook news post uploaded by one journalist Gunanand Jakhmola was caused to be published on Parvatjan news portal being operated by the appellant.

The Division Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai &Justice Sandeep Mehta made it clear that that in order to constitute an offence u/s 153A IPC, the prosecution must come out with a case that the words spoken or written attributed to the accused, created enmity or bad blood between different groups on the ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., or that the acts so alleged were prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony.

Upon careful perusal of the offending news article, the Bench opined that there was no reference to any group or groups of people in the said article. The publication focussed totally on the complainant imputing that he had encroached upon public land where the foundation stone laying ceremony was proposed at the hands of Chief Minister of Uttarakhand. Apparently, the post was aimed at frustrating the proposed foundation stone laying ceremony on the land, of which the complainant claims to be the true owner. The post also imputed that the person who was planning the foundation stone ceremony was an enemy of mountains and had no concern with the well-being of the mountains.

It was also observed that the lines only referred to the complainant, imputing that his activities were prejudicial to the hills. These words had no connection whatsoever with a group or groups of people or communities. Hence, the foundational facts essential to constitute the offence under Section 153A IPC were held to be totally lacking from the allegations as set out in the FIR.

The Bech further observed that Section 504 IPC can be invoked when the insult of a person provokes him to break public peace or to commit any other offence. There wasno such allegation in the FIR that owing to the alleged offensive post attributable to the appellant, the complainant was provoked to such an extent that he could indulge in disturbing the public peace or commit any other offence. Since foundational facts essential for constituting the substantive offences under Sections 153A and 504 IPC were not available from the admitted allegations of prosecution, the Bench opined that the allegations qua the subsidiary offences under Sections 34 and 120B IPC would also be non-est.

After going through the principles for exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Bench quashed the impugned FIR and all proceedings sought to be taken against the appellant.