Kangana Ranaut's Tweets Intended To Generate Hatred Towards Maharashtra Govt: Complainant Opposes Quashing Of FIR Against Kangana & Sister For Alleged Tweets

A counter affidavit has been filed before the Bombay High Court, opposing the plea for quashing of sedition FIR moved by Bollywood actress Kangana Ranaut and her sister Rangoli Chandel. The reply is filed by casting director Munawar Ali Sayyed, who had sought the FIR to be registered for offences punishable under Sections 153 A, 295 A, 124 A r/w 34 of IPC, for allegedly trying to create a communal divide through their social media. Sayyed has alleged that the sisters deliberately made the tweets to bring hatred and excite disaffection towards the Maharashtra Government. "Through the twitter messages both the Applicants have sought to generate, engineer and orchestrate a feeling of disaffection, hatred and enmity including disloyalty towards the Government of Maharashtra which is established by law in India," Sayyed submitted. The reply added, "Needless to say that circulation of such offensive tweets disclosing the intention and tendency of the applicants to create a situation of public order and also creating an environment of an environment prejudicial to public tranquillity amongst her 3 Million followers on her twitter account was done with the obvious intention to bring the present government of Maharashtra into hatred, contempt as well as to excite or attempt to excite disaffection towards the said government. Some of the tweets of the Petitioner are provocative and intended to reach a large segment of people on the social platform of twitter account with the intention that such words used by her would lead to use criminal force and violence and knowing full well that the likely participants in such activity of criminal force and violence against any religion, race, language, regional group or caste and community for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear, alarm and feeling of insecurity amongst such members of such religion, race, language, regional group or caste and community.By no stretch of imagination can these tweets be termed as an expression of disapprobation and disapproval of the measures of the Government of Maharashtra with the view of obtaining their alteration by lawful means without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection." Background The Bandra Police booked the Ranaut and Chandel for allegedly trying to create a communal divide through their social media, after a direction in that behalf made by Bandra Magistrate Court under Section 156(3) of CrPC. The complainant had alleged that the sisters are maliciously bringing religion in almost all their tweets, to create hatred and communal tensions between Hindus and Muslims. In this regard, he referred to instances wherein Kangana and Rangoli's tweets were allegedly communal. Her tweets on lynching of Hindu Sadhus at Palghar, calling the BMC "Babur Sena" after her office was demolished, claiming that she is the first person to make a movie on Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and Rani Laxmi bai of Jhansi in a "Islam dominated industry", blaming Jamaatis for spreading Corona virus etc are cited by the complainant alleging that Kanagana tried to create hatred and communal tensions between Hindus and Muslims deliberately. In the instant case, the sisters contended that the magistrate did not justify how any of their tweets promote enmity between different groups or act prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between groups, and sought quashing of the said FIR. No infirmity in Magistrate's order for registration of FIR The Respondent has submitted that while exercising its powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., a Magistrate is not required to justify the ingredients of the penal section to be made out in the order. "The finding in the order under section156 (3) Cr. P.C. is required to be in the form of a prima facie satisfaction that the cognizable offences appear to have been committed. The entire exercise post an order under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. is within the jurisdiction and prerogative of the investigation officer who would commence investigation by following the procedure under Section 156 Cr. P.C.," the Respondent submitted. The affidavit added, "The entire exercise of investigation by the investigating officer is to facilitate collection of evidence to show that the charge made out in the Complaint under 156 (3) Cr.P.C was justified. In other words, it is a prerogative of the investigating officer alone to collect evidence to prove that the acts of omission and commission carved out under application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C were actually offences with which the Applicants have been charged in the instant case. There is no requirement of the Ld. Magistrate to record any justification with regard to the ingredients of the offence." Further defending invocation of Sedition charges against the sisters, the Respondent submitted, "Although, no disturbance is caused or brought about by ...

Kangana Ranaut's Tweets Intended To Generate Hatred Towards Maharashtra Govt: Complainant Opposes Quashing Of FIR Against Kangana & Sister For Alleged Tweets

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Kangana Ranaut's Tweets Intended To Generate Hatred Towards Maharashtra Govt: Complainant Opposes Quashing Of FIR Against Kangana & Sister For Alleged Tweets

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers