AAMIR KHAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashment of the order dated 27/09/07 and Criminal Complaint No-33932/07 whereby the cognizance was taken by the learned JMFC, Indore under Section 2 & 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National-Honour Act, 1971 Clause (2),(3),(4),(5),(7),(8),(11),(12) of Section 2(B)(5),(10) and Clause 3.5, 3.7, 3.90 and 9.13 of Section 3 and Clause 3.24, 3.25, 3.27 of Section 5, Clause 3.31 of Section 6 and clause 3.57 of Section 11 Flag Code of India 2002 and Section 109 of the IPC.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 Shailendra Sharma filed a private complaint on 22/09/07 before the learned Court below alleging that on 16/08/07 a programme was arranged by accused Rakesh Rajpal and Ashok Rajpal at their premises M/s Rajpal Abhikaran Private Limited, dealers of Toyota vehicles and in that programme petitioner was invited as guest, who was suppose to give keys of Innova Cars to the persons who have purchased the same. In the complaint it was alleged that in the business campus of M/s Rajpal Abhikaran Pvt. Ltd. wherein the said programme was arranged, some National Flags were hoisted. It was alleged that even after the sunset, the National Flags continued to fly in the premises. It was alleged That in the said function higher authorities of the police department were also present . It was further alleged that there was a huge gathering in the function and when the fact was brought to the notice to the accused Rakesh Rajpal and Ashok Rajpal, than the National Flags were pull down in a disrespectful and insulting manner. It was alleged in the complaint that to allow to fly the flag after the sunset and to pull down the same in disrespectful manner amounts to an offence. In the complaint it is further alleged that news in that regard was flashed in the news papers dated 17/08/07. It was alleged that the petitioner who is a film hero and was the brand ambassador of Toyota, who was present as chief guest has also committed the alleged offence. It was prayed that after taking cognizance of the offence the petitioner and other accused persons be noticed and after recording of evidence they be convicted.

(3.) In support of the complaint respondent No.2 Shailendra Sharma examined himself under Section 200 and 202 Cr.RC. as AW/1 and also examined Arvind Sharma as AW/2. Upon the complaint vide order dated 27/09/07 the learned Trial Court took the cognizance of the offence and issued bailable warrant, hence this petition.