Breaking: Bombay High Court Quashes Journalist's Criminal Intimidation Complaint Against Actor Salman Khan

The Bombay High Court on Thursday quashed the private complaint against actor Salman Khan filed by a journalist in 2019 alleging criminal intimidation.

A metropolitan court in Andheri had earlier issued summons to the actor, which was challenged in the High Court.

Justice Bharati Dangre had asked, "Before the process was issued, was the procedure followed? You claim force was used, but for what?"

In his private complaint before the Magistrate Journalist Ashok Pandey had alleged that Khan snatched his mobile phone while cycling on a Mumbai-street when some media persons started clicking his photos. The actor argued with him and then threatened him, he added.

Last year the Magistrate ordered a police investigation under Section 202 of the CrPC and subsequently issued process and summons, under Section 204 of the CrPC, returnable on April 5, 2022.

Khan along with his bodyguard Nawaz Shaikh, also an accused in the case, challenged this order before the High Court.

On an earlier date Justice Revati Mohite Dere stayed the summons citing improvements in the complainant's statement. She said that being a journalist, the complainant wouldn't have kept quiet and all his allegations would have reflected in the first complaint itself.

Before Justice Dangre, Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda argued that Salman Khan only asked his bodyguard to stop Pandey from taking any pictures.

He argued that on the date of the incident, April 24, itself a complaint was sent to the police in which Pandey alleged that his phone was snatched. However, in the criminal complaint to the Magistrate, there were several improvements.

"A common link between an offence under section 504 & 506 of the IPC is a threat which includes consequences. Abuses are not threats," Ponda argued.

Ponda further submitted that verification under section 200 which was a pre-requisite to issuance of process was not done in this case.

Advocate for Pandey said that an affidavit was given by the complainant to the court therefore there was sufficient compliance of Section 202 of the CrPC. On merits he said the offence was made out and no respectable person should be treating others this way, like snatching the phone.

"Let people have their privacy, Mr. counsel." Justice Dangre observed. "Also, you forgot that Salman Khan had assaulted you?" she said regarding improvements in his statement.

After Pandey's lawyer said no one was above the law, Justice Dangre said, "Neither you nor he is above the law. Even Press persons are also not above the law," she had said.

Background

Pandey had initially filed a complaint alleging offences under sections 324, 392,426,506(ii) and 34 of the IPC and sought for an FIR to be registered u/s 156(3). However, the court turned down the request for an FIR but directed investigation u/s 202 of the CrPC to ascertain if there are sufficient grounds to proceed against Khan and his bodyguard.

The police report claimed that only offences under sections 504 and 506 of the IPC were made out and process was issued accordingly. While Section 506(ii) of the IPC is non-bailable, punishment under section 506 of the IPC is for a term which may extend upto two years, or with fine, or both.

Metropolitan Magistrate RR Khan relied on a police report in the matter, which stated that prima facie offences under Indian Penal Code Sections 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) and 506 (criminal intimidation) are made out against the accused. The summons is returnable on April 5, 2022.

"Keeping in view the self-speaking material on record, positive police report u/s 202 of CrPC and other material on record, there is sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused persons for offences u/s 504, 506 of the IPC. Hence, I am satisfied to issue process against the accused persons through the following order," the Andheri court order read.

Appearance : Counsel is Abad Ponda; Agastya Desai is junior counsel and Vikram Sutaria,  from DSK Legal- Anand Desai, Managing Partner; Chandrima Mitra, Partner and Parag Khandhar, Partner

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 169