Observing that ‘Mohammad’ Deepak should not “indulge in sending messages or videos on social media”, the Uttarakhand High Court on Friday disposed of his petition seeking the quashing of an FIR against him.
The single-judge bench of Justice Rakesh Thapliyal ordered that the petitioners, Deepak and his friend Vijay Rawat, should refrain from posting on social media. “Don’t sensationalise the matter. I will restrain you from giving any statement on social media because you are an accused facing an investigation. Don’t give any statement on social media. This is my strict direction to you,” the judge said in his oral observation.
Deepak and Rawat had filed the petition after they were booked based on a complaint by a Kotdwar resident.
On January 26, Deepak stood up to a group of men who were harassing a 70-year-old Muslim shopkeeper to drop the word “Baba” from his shop’s name. During the confrontation, when asked his name, he told the crowd it was Mohammad Deepak. Five days later, members of the Bajrang Dal gathered to confront Deepak, but were restrained by the police.
Kumar had lodged a complaint against individuals who assembled in front of his gym, allegedly hurled abuses and delivered hate speeches. The police then filed an FIR based on the complaint of a police officer against unknown accused. Kumar stated in his petition that the police failed to take action despite evidence, including videos and details of the accused.
His counsel argued that the men against whom they have filed a police complaint are on social media and giving interviews to the press. However, the court responded, “You are before the court, you are challenging the FIR, you are saying the police didn’t do anything, and you are busy on social media.”
Deepak’s counsel asked what was unconstitutional in his statements aired online. “It is not a crime,” he said.
Story continues below this ad
The court, in its order, said that the incidents of January 26 and 31 were unfortunate. “This court hopes and trusts that the investigation agency will conduct and conclude the investigation in a fair and transparent manner… The petitioners should cooperate with the investigation, and till the investigation is completed, they should not indulge in sending messages or videos with regard to the incident. This is essential for a fair and transparent investigation. If someone indulges in sending messages or videos on social media, this will affect the investigation,” the court said.
The court dismissed Deepak’s prayers seeking police protection, lodging an FIR against the accused who assembled in front of his gym on January 31, and a departmental inquiry against erring officials. It said that these constitutional reliefs are nothing but an attempt to “sensationalise” the issue and frustrate the ongoing investigation of the impugned FIR.
The court observed that the registration of two FIRs on the petitioners’ complaint was deliberately suppressed by the petitioners, but their counsel said that no information regarding the FIRs had been given to them. He further argued that the registration of the FIRs without naming those persons against whom the petitioner made a complaint reveals that the police officers want to save those persons. The court noted his submission that the police officers are hand in glove with the persons against whom the petitioner made a complaint.
In response, the counsel for the state submitted that Deepak’s gym is located only 100 metres from the police station where these two FIRs have been registered. “Since the first incident, the petitioner 1 (Deepak) has been busy on social media platforms giving statements,” she said. The counsel for the state said the argument – that the petitioner was aware of the impugned FIR but remained unaware of the subsequent FIRs registered on his complaint – was misleading.
Story continues below this ad
Regarding the prayer for security, the counsel for the state said that Deepak was provided with security from February 3 to March 13, and that a police team remained outside his gym until March 12. The court said that if an accused is under investigation, he cannot pray for protection. “If this is accepted, then in future, a situation will arise where any person under investigation can pray for security and police protection. Therefore, if a person is under investigation, he has to hope and trust that his life is secure and protected,” the judge said, adding that if he still has a threat perception, he has a right to report to the police.
The court also said that the provision of protection by the police revealed that the investigation agency is cautious about securing his life and liberty. “It does not mean the petitioner takes undue advantage of this,” the court said, calling the relief misconceived as it was not disclosed in the petition.
Regarding the quashing of the FIR, the court said that all offences in the FIR are punishable for less than seven years and that the investigation agency is under a legal obligation to follow the Arnesh Kumar guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court. “The writ petition is disposed of with instructions to the police that the guidelines are followed. Simultaneously, the petitioners are directed to cooperate with the investigation and not to be in touch unnecessarily on social media platforms. He is a citizen and should abide by the law,” the court observed.
