Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The petitioner hosts and anchors debate shows ‘Aar Paar’ on News18 India and ‘Takkar’ on CNBC Awaaz. On 15th June, 2020, at around 7:30 p.m., the petitioner had hosted and anchored a debate on the enactment1 which, while excluding Ayodhya, prohibits conversion and provides for maintenance of the religious character of places of worship as it existed on 15 th August, 1947. Some Hindu priest organisations had challenged vires of this Act before the Supreme Court, and reportedly a Muslim organization had filed a petition opposing the challenge.

The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.

7. 337/2020 295A IPC Naya Nagar, Thane (Maharashtra) The gist of the FIRs is almost identical. The petitioner, while hosting the debate, had described Pir Hazrat Moinuddin Chishti, also known as Pir Hazrat Khwaja Gareeb Nawaz, as “aakrantak Chishti aya... aakrantak Chishti aya... lootera Chishti aya... uske baad dharam badle”. Translated in English the words spoken would read – “Terrorist Chishti came. Terrorist Chishti came. Robber Chishti came - thereafter the religion changed,” imputing that ‘the Pir Hazrat Moinuddin Chishti, a terrorist and robber, had by fear and intimidation coerced Hindus to embrace Islam.’ It is alleged that the petitioner had deliberately and intentionally insulted a Pir or a pious saint belonging to the Muslim community, revered even by Hindus, and thereby hurt and incited religious hatred towards Muslims.

10. The points raised by the respondents can be summarised as under:

 The petition ought to be dismissed as Article 32 has been invoked in a cavalier manner. Remedy under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereafter referred to as, ‘Criminal Code’) was available to the petitioner. 38  The offending words were uttered thrice by the petitioner, which shows his ill intention.39 The intention of the petitioner was to create disharmony between the two faiths/groups and to incite disorder.40  The debate was a staged program, where no experts or historians were on the panel; the program was staged to malign the Muslims and to promote hatred.41  The themes of the programs hosted by the Petitioner are communal.42  The conduct of the petitioner was against norms of journalistic standards.43  Petitioner uploaded an edited version of the video on Youtube, where he had removed the part containing the offensive speech. This was done after FIR was lodged as an attempt to tamper/destroy the evidence.44 I.A. by Haji Syed Chisti, Khadim of Dargah; RESPONDENT NO. 9, I.A. by Haji Syed Chisti, Khadim of Dargah; Respondent no. 9, Respondent no. 6 I.A. by Haji Syed Chisti, Khadim of Dargah I.A. by Sajid Noormohammad Sheikh r/o Nashik, Maharashtra Respondent no. 9, Respondent no. 10 Respondent no. 6 Respondent no. 9  The Petitioner claimed that inadvertently he uttered “Chishti” in place of “Khilji”, but there is no relation between these two historical figures. Khwaja Chishti came to India in 1136 when Md. Ghori was defeated by Prithvi Raj Chauhan for the first time in the battle of Tarain. Whereas, Khiljis ruled in India from 1290 to 1320. So Khilji and Khwaja Chishti were neither contemporaries nor related to each other.45  Apology by the Petitioner was an afterthought. It came only after the registration of FIR.46 The petitioner did not apologize initially and let the followers of Khwaja Chishti be outraged, in order to gain popularity.47  The two persons, whose credentials the petitioner has mentioned in the petition, to press that the members of the community have forgiven him, is false. These two people as TV personalities and nowhere represent the devotees of Khwaja Chishti.48  FIR need not have an encyclopaedia of the event. Even if only material facts have been disclosed, it is enough to continue with criminal proceedings.49 Respondent no. 9 I.A. by Haji Syed Chisti, Khadim of Dargah; Respondent no. 9, I.A. by Haji Syed Chisti, Khadim of Dargah; Respondent no. 9, Respondent no. 9 Respondent no. 9  Some communal elements in Maharashtra, after the broadcast of the utterances by the Petitioner, used this opportunity and started circulating this video to spread hatred. 50  Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is subject to express limitations under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.  The police should be permitted to file report under Section 173 of the Criminal Code and court should frame the charges. Then only the petitioner would get the opportunity to defend himself in the court.51  Section 19 of the Cable TV (Regulation) Act prohibits cable TV network to broadcast any content that promotes hate or ill will. 52  The broadcast was throughout the nation and thus cause of action arose in Ajmer too, where the intervener resides and serves as khadim to Dargah of Khwaja Chishti.  Respondent no. 5, State of Uttar Pradesh, 53 reiterated the facts of the FIR lodged at the instance of informant Amish Devgan.
(i) Cause of Action
13. We reject the contention of the petitioner that criminal proceedings arising from the impugned FIRs ought to be quashed as these FIRs were registered in places where no ‘cause of action’ arose.

Section 179 of the Criminal Code provides that an offence is triable at the place where an act is done or its consequence ensues. It provides:

“179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues: When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued.” The debate-show hosted by the petitioner was broadcast on a widely viewed television network. The audience, including the complainants, were located in different parts of India and were affected by the utterances of the petitioner; thus, the consequence of the words of the petitioner ensued in different places, including the places of registration of the impugned FIRs.