25 Aug 2023 8:26 AM GMT
Raising 'Fascist BJP Down' slogan is not an offence, the Madras High Court observed while quashing the FIR lodged against Lois Sofia, arrested for raising slogans against the BJP government on board a flight in the presence of former Tamil Nadu BJP president and current Governor of Telangana and Lieutenant Governor of Puducherry Tamilisai Soundararajan.
Justice P Dhanabal of the Madurai bench noted that Sophia had only raised the slogan as “Fascist BJP” and those words did not constitute any offence and were trivial in nature. Further, the court noted that there was nothing in the chargesheet to attract the offence of public nuisance under Section 290 of IPC.
Present State President of Tamil Nadu BJP and intervenor in the case K Annamalai contended that the police failed to register a case under the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Safety of Civil Aviation Act 1982. However, the court noted that the said Act will not be attracted since no violence was committed by Sophia and mere uttering of word was not likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft.
Police Failed To Follow Procedure
Interestingly, the Court also noted that the FIR was initially registered under Section 209 IPC (Public Nuisance) and Section 75 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act (Penalty for drunkenness or riotous or indecent behavior in public places), both being non-cognizable offences. However, Section 505(1)(b), which is a cognizable offence, was later hand-written into the printed FIR without any averments in the complaint.
Noting this, the Magistrate had also refused to remand Sophia for the offence under Section 505(1)(b) of IPC and had remanded her only for the offences under Section 290 of IPC and Section 75(1)(c) of Tamil Nadu City Police Act.
The High Court said that once remand under Section 505 was rejected, the police had a duty to follow the procedure under Section 155 CrPC. However, in the present case, the procedures were not followed. The court added that merely including Section 505 IPC in the FIR, without any materials in the complaint, was not sufficient to deviate from the procedure contemplated under law.
“As per Section 155(4) of Cr.P.C., Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable. However the complaint does not disclose any cognizable offence and mere inclusion of cognizable offence for the reasons best known to them will not affect the procedures under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. Once the procedures under Sections 155(1)and (2) of Cr.P.C are mandatory as per the above said judgments submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, mere inclusion of cognizable offence without any materials in the complaint, it does not mean that the procedures mandated under Section 155(1)and (2) of Cr.P.C would not attracted. Therefore mere inclusion of 505(1)(b) of IPC in the First Information Report is not sufficient to deviate from the procedure mandated under Sections 155(1)and (2) of Cr.P.C,” the court said.
The court also noted that Thoothukudi District, where the FIR was registered, was not listed under the Tamil Nadu City Police Act and thus, Section 75 of the Act could not be invoked. Thus, the court observed that the charge against Sophia, to that extend was also liable to be quashed.
Thus, finding that the act done by Sophia did not attract any offence, the court allowed her plea to quash the proceedings.