High Court gives clean chit to Kangana - ECAS Punjab

High Court gives clean chit to Kangana

Share This

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, September 17

Actor Kangana Ranaut, who landed herself in a controversy following her alleged post on social media on the consumption of beef, was today virtually given a clean chit in the matter by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Taking up a petition for registration of an FIR against the actor under the penal laws, Justice Manoj Bajaj asserted a perusal of the alleged post did not, prima facie, suggest in any manner the commission of an offence punishable under Section 295-A of the IPC on deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.

Referring to another post relied upon by the petitioner-complainant, Justice Bajaj asserted it contained excerpts of a conversation about eating places within and outside India. Most importantly, it nowhere showed it was posted on the social media by the actor.

“Thus, the facts and circumstances do not indicate commission of any cognizable offence by the respondent,” Justice Bajaj added after hearing the counsel.

The matter was brought to the HC’s notice after Ludhiana resident Navneet Gopi filed a petition for protection and directions to the state to conduct an inquiry on his representations/complaints and to take legal action against Kangana.

Gopi’s counsel drew the court’s attention to the posts on the social media before submitting the contents had hurt the religious feelings of a particular section of society and it amounted to commission of offence punishable under the penal laws.

The counsel added the petitioner gave two representations on August 5 and August 20 to the Haibowal Station House Officer and Ludhiana Commissioner of Police for registration of an FIR under the provisions of Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, Information Technology Act and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. But action was not taken.

Referring to prayer for protecting life and liberty, Justice Bajaj asserted it was not based on genuine apprehension as details of persons or organisations behind the threats were not mentioned in the petition. Even the complaints and representations lacked particulars, as averments regarding threat to him and his family had not been pleaded. “It has not at all been described as to how and in what manner the alleged threat was extended.

Dismissing the petition, Justice Bajaj asserted: “The court has no hesitation in holding that the petition is vague and misconceived. Therefore, this court is not inclined to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.”

from The Tribune https://ift.tt/3kFirIf

No comments:

Post a Comment