A.X.VARGHESE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking certain directions to be issued to respondents 1 to 3 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) IT is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is a practicing lawyer in the High Court of Kerala. He is aggrieved by non -registration of First Information Report despite the receipt of a complaint relating to the complaint of a cognizable offence. On 21.11.2013 in the function of inauguration of hunger strike organized by Western Ghats people protection committee in front of Kozhikode Collectorate, the 4th respondent made a hatred speech thereby committed acts of promoting thoughts of enmity and hatred between different classes of citizens resulting serious public disorder. The hatred speech made by the 4th respondent attracted the offence punishable under Sections 153 A and 124 A of the Indian Penal Code. The speech was published in printed media and also in visual media. Ext.P1 is one of such reports published in Times of India. The alleged hatred speech, according to the petitioner, amounts an offence under Section 153 A and 124 A of the Indian Penal Code. He sent Ext.P2 complaint by registered post to the second and third respondents,which were received by them on 25.11.2013 evidenced by Ext.P3 series postal acknowledgments. He had also sent Ext.P4 petition for granting sanction to file complaint to the first respondent and no action has been taken on that application. According to the petitioner, as per the decision reported in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P and others (2013 (4) KHC 552), the third respondent is bound to register First Information Report as the allegations in the complaint disclose commission of a cognizable offence and non compliance of the same will entitle the petitioner to approach this Court for its intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. So, the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(3.) THE petitioner filed reply statement denying the allegations in the statement filed by the second respondent and also produced Ext.P5, copy of the report published in Malayala Manorama in respect of the same incident. Thereafter this Court has directed the third respondent to file a statement. Accordingly, the third respondent filed a statement which reads as follows: