"You Don't Like The Serial, Don't Watch It": Bombay High Court Mulls Community Service For Man Who Lodged Complaint Over Zee TV Show

While indicating that it will order the complainant to do cleaning and mopping work at one of the hospitals in Mumbai, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday closed for orders, the petition filed by Zee TV seeking to quash the First Information Report (FIR) lodged against the channel for its new show titled 'Tum Se Tum Tak' which revolves around the love story of a nearly 46-year-old man and a 19-year-old girl. A division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad pulled up the complainant Sunil Sharma for filing the complaint contending that the story of the serial 'hurts' the sentiments and also for not disclosing his true identity in the FIR."What is offensive in the serial? If we go by your idea (of what is offensive) we will have to switch off the TV itself...Should we switch off the TV and stop watching serials? A 46-year-old actor falls in love with 19-year-old girl and that will hurt the sentiments... You keep this with you...We can understand if there is some communal riot or frenzy arises because of the show or some communal tension etc... what is this? There is a judgment (of Justice Lodha) which clearly says, if you do not like a movie or a show, don't watch it," the judges remarked orally. Complainant May Have To Do Community ServiceNotably, the bench had expressed shock over the conduct of the complainant, who initially gave his name to the Cyber Cell as 'Sunil Sharma' and when he was produced before the judges last month, he stated his name to be 'Sunil Mahendra Sharma' however, his Aadhar Card, PAN Card and other documents showed his name as 'Mahendra Sanjay Sharma.'The judges asked the counsel appearing for Sharma to 'justify' his conduct, to which, it was submitted that the complainant has a right to lodge a complaint and since he was apprehending any kind of action against him as he was filing an FIR against a big media house, he changed the name in the complaint. "In the record before us, there are three types of signatures, the complainant made in the open court... This shows some problem with your (complainant's) own conduct... A mischief is played in the court hall... We can even direct the police to register an FIR against you.. But we do not get any pleasure to order someone's arrest...already Arthur Road jail is full," the judges orally remarked. However, the counsel for the complainant argued, "There is a bar on directing so... I am not bound to lodge a complaint in my own name... I can also be an anonymous complainant."At this, Justice Ghuge said, "You can say you are an anonymous complainant... We can understand that... But here you say you are ABC and then you turn out to be XYZ...What kind of a justification is this? We are surprised to hear this justification...Why did you not maintain anonymity? How do you explain such a vexatious conduct?"The bench observed that the conduct of the complainant clearly indicated mischief and malice on his part. The judges, then upon a suggestion by Advocate General Dr Birendra Saraf indicated that it may order Sharma to do community service, at least for a month. "Let him do cleaning, mopping etc of JJ Hospital... We will ask the Medical Superintendent to give him some work and he will have to do it for at least 1 month. This man will have to do community service and he should not send anybody who is a proxy there for community service, the way he did here," the bench expressed. Cyber Police Officer's LapseNotably, even in the previous hearing, the bench had expressed displeasure over the manner in which the Cyber Cell's nodal officer lodged the FIR in the instant case, without cross verifying the documents of the complainant and the details he shared or mentioned in the complaint.To the AG, the bench said, "Your officer is not a child... It's not like he got a lollipop from a stranger... We did not want to use this word but given his conduct, we have heard a word during our childhood, which teachers used often. That word is stupidity... Yes he did stupidity, to say the least. We are leaving the officer to his destiny in so far as departmental action...This policeman didn't even realise to cross check the identity the complainant and went on to file the complaint and even brought him before this court without verifying the documents. Let there be proper disciplinary action as per service rules, against the officer," the bench said. With these oral observations, the judges, reserved the matter for order.

"You Don't Like The Serial, Don't Watch It": Bombay High Court Mulls Community Service For Man Who Lodged Complaint Over Zee TV Show

Narsi Benwal

Tags