BHANULAL SAHA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks quashing of multiple FIRs filed against him before various police stations in the State for having posted three separate facebook posts which according to the informants excites the people into committing riots and creating disharmony amongst different sections of the society. Accordingly, these FIRs are registered for allegations of committing offences punishable under Sections 153, 153A, 109, 506 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code. The facebook posts in question read as under:

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that none of these facebook posts urges the people to commit any illegal act. All that the petitioner urged the people of the locality was to be ready for a resistance against attack on their life and property. In the process even if the petitioner urged these people to take up weapons which are legally permissible to be carried, he committed no offence. Counsel submitted that Section 96 of Indian Penal Code gives full liberty to a citizen to protect his life and property by using sufficient force which is necessary for the purpose. Thus, according to the counsel if the petitioner had not urged the members of the public to commit any illegal act, the registering of FIR was not permissible. In short, his contention was that even if all the allegations contained in these FIRs are taken on face value they do not constitute any offence. He of course raised the question of filing multiple FIRs for the same incident and submitted that the same is meant only to harass the petitioner since he would have to appear before different police stations answering same set of allegations.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Advocate General agreed at the outset that separate and independent investigation for the same set of allegations before different police stations would not be permissible in law. He, therefore, stated that the investigation would be carried out at only one police station and the petitioner would have to answer to only one investigating team. He, however, appearing on advance copy strongly resisted this petition. He contended that the FIR has to be read as a whole and seen in background of attending facts and circumstances. The petitioner in series of posts is urging the members of the public to take arms and this is sufficient incitement for commission of riots. These posts also would create disharmony between different sections of the population. Very clearly thus offences under Sections 153 and 153A of Indian Penal Code are made out. He reminded me of the propositions laid down by the Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335. He submitted that since in the present case the allegations made in the FIR make out commission of cognizable offences the same was rightly registered by the police and should be allowed to be investigated.