[Breaking] [Beef Row] P&H HC Dismisses Plea Seeking Action Against Actress Kangana Ranaut For Her Twitter Post [Read Order]

The Single Bench of Justice Manoj Bajaj observed,

"A perusal of the alleged (social-media) post does not prima facie suggest that it amounts to commission of an offence punishable under Section 295-A IPC, in any manner. On the contrary, the post describes the person as vegetarian, therefore, it cannot be construed at all, that it promotes consumption of beef much less by way of advice." (emphasis supplied)

The Background of the Case

One Navneet Gopi had filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C before the High Court for issuance of directions to respondent Nos.1 to 4 for conducting an inquiry in his representations/complaints and further to take legal action against respondent No.5, namely, Kangana Ranaut.

It was alleged that she has outraged the religious feelings of the petitioner and others by intentionally putting a post on social media to promote the consumption of beef.

Further, the petitioner prayed that the life and liberty of the petitioner and his family be protected, who are facing threats as a result of complaints given by him against respondent No.5 (Kangana Ranaut).

He invited the attention of the Court to the subject post/Twitter Post (attached below) allegedly put on social media by respondent No.5 (Kangana Ranaut) and submitted that these contents have hurt the religious feelings of a particular section of the society which amounts to commission of an offence punishable under penal laws.

It was pointed out that the petitioner gave two representations in this regard on 05.08.2020 and 20.08.2020 to SHO, Haibowal, Ludhiana and Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, respectively, for registration of FIR against respondent No.5 under Section 8 of Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, Sections 66 and 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 295-A Indian Penal Code, 1860, but no action had been taken on these complaints so far by the official respondents.

Lastly, he prayed that the necessary directions be issued to the official respondents.

Court's Observation

After hearing the counsel and going through the averments in the petition, the Court did not find any merit in the prayer made by the petitioner.

The Court was of the view that a perusal of the alleged post does not prima facie suggest that it amounts to commission of an offence punishable under Section 295-A IPC, in any manner.

Further, the Court remarked,

"The other post relied upon by the petitioner contained excerpts of the conversation about eating places within and outside India and most importantly, as the Court noted, it nowhere showed that it was posted on social media by respondent No.5."

Thus, the Court observed that the facts and circumstances do not indicate the commission of any cognizable offence by respondent No. 5

Further, the Court noted that the other prayer of the petitioner for protecting his life and liberty was also not based upon any genuine apprehension of the threat as no details of the persons or organizations, from whom the alleged threat is being received had been mentioned in the petition.

Apart from it, the Court was of the view that the complaints/representations given by the petitioner also lack all kinds of particulars as no averment regarding the threat to the petitioner or his family has been pleaded. It has not at all been described as to how and in what manner the alleged threat was extended to him.

In view of the above discussion, the Court held that the petition was vague and misconceived; therefore, the Court was not inclined to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

It may be noted that on Thursday (10^th September), the Bombay High Court had directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation to stop the demolition being carried out by the civic body at actor Kangana Ranaut's house in Pali Hill, Bandra for removal of alleged illegal construction.

A Division Bench of Justice S. J. Kathawalla and Justice R. I. Chagla heard the matter via video conferencing and directed the municipal corporation to file an affidavit.

It was submitted by the actress before the Court that unlawful additions & alterations were made to the property. On the other hand, the BMC defended the demolition.

Also, on Tuesday (15^th September), in an amended petition filed before the Bombay High Court, the actress contended that the action taken by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) in demolishing 40 per cent of her bungalow at Pali Hill in Bandra, which she used as an office space, was borne out of vendetta against her as those in power in the state as well as the MCGM "are displeased and angered by the causes taken up by her."

The actress has sought Rs.2 crore in damages caused to her due to MCGM's action of demolition carried out on September 10. The case has been listed for further hearing on Tuesday (22^nd September).

Case Details:

Case Title: Navneet Gopi v. State of Punjab and others

Case No.: CRM-M-28390-2020

Quorum: Justice Manoj Bajaj

Appearance: Advocate Vaneet Kumar Sharma (for petitioner).