Jammu and Kashmir High Court Orders Govt. to respond to the petition filed by the Kashmiri Journalist Gowhar Geelani to quash the FIR registered against him

Must Read

Madras HC Reaffirms Trial Court’s Decree in Case of Thimmaraya & Ors. V. Gowrammal

A Civil Revision Petition was filed by three petitioners against the dismissal of their application on the file of...

Delhi High Court Disposes Ashok Arora’s Appeal Against Suspension From Supreme Court Bar Association

In the present Petition, Senior Advocate Ashok Arora challenged an Order passed by a Single Judge bench. The Order...

Allahabad High Court Dismisses Application To Quash Prima Facie Allegations of Criminal Intimidation and Outraging Modesty

Allahabad High Court, on 17th November 2020, dismissed an application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and refused to...

Delhi High Court Prohibits Gathering in Public Places To Celebrate Chhat Puja

The Order had come in a Writ Petition moved by Shri Durga Jan Seva Trust. The Petition sought to...

Bombay High Court Directs State To Pass Tribe Claim Within Two Weeks, Refuses To Intervene on Merits of Claim Itself

The Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S.S. Shinde and Madhav Jayajirao Jamdar passed an order...

Kerala High Court Dismisses Petition by Allocating Respondent To Vacancy in IFS Cadre

On 16th November 2020, the Division Bench at Kerala High Court, consisting of Honourable Justice A.M. Shaffique and Honourable...

Follow us

On 24 April 2020, the Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey heard the case of Gowhar Nazir Shah Geelani v. The Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and others, over video-conferencing, wherein a petition was filed by Mr Gowhar Geelani seeking to quash the FIR registered against him for indulging in unlawful activities through social media posts, at the Cyber Police Station, Kashmir Zone.

Brief facts of the case:

The Jammu and Kashmir Police claimed that the Cyber Police had received information through reliable sources that “an individual namely Gowhar Geelani is indulging in unlawful activities through his posts and writings in social media platforms which are prejudicial to the national integrity, sovereignty and security of India.” He is the third journalist to be booked by the Police in two days. Thus, he filed a petition seeking to quash the FIR registered against him.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

Mr Salih Pirzada, the learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the Cyber Police Station has no jurisdiction to register and investigate cases relating to offences falling under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Indian Penal Code. It was brought to the attention of the court that the cyber Police Station only had the jurisdiction to register and investigate cases regarding offences falling under Information technology Act, 2000 and other such allied offences in the aforementioned area. Therefore, he contended that the act of registering the FIR by Cyber Police Station was beyond the powers vested under Section 78 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The petitioner’s counsel also claimed that the details regarding the commission of the offence by the petitioner mentioned in the FIR do not disclose to be cognizable offence, based on which the FIR was registered.

He further mentions that under the Criminal Procedure Code, it is the duty of the Police officer in charge of registering the FIR to satisfy two conditions while disclosing cognizable offences-

  1. The Police Officer should have a reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence.
  2. He should subjectively satisfy himself as to whether there is sufficient ground for entering on an investigation.

Thus, according to the counsel, the information forming the basis of the complaint does not meet the requirements of Section 3 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

The counsel, therefore, contends that the action of the Police in registering FIR against the journalist was based on the malice of law and there was no material to it and that his client was only performing his professional duties which are guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India.

He further claimed that similar subject matter was heard and decided by the Kerala High Court in the case of Rajesh Vs State of Kerala, where the court quashed the FIR and held that the Cyber Police Station has no power to investigate the offence beyond the terms of provisions of Information Technology Act, 2000.

Respondent’s Arguments:

Mr B. A Dar, the learned Sr. AAG who is the counsel for the State here, claims that the petitioner and his counsel have not complied with the requirements of Standing Operation Procedure while dealing with urgent matters during the lockdown period due to the spread of COVID-19  since no copy of the petition was furnished to him by e-mail in advance and no consent was sought for the listing of the matter.

The learned Sr. AAG claims that the court has no power to interfere in the matter as it is beyond its powers exercised under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on the threshold of judgment. It is further stated by the counsel that all grounds of challenge are vague and has no merit and that the merits of the case cannot be discussed or the petitioner cannot claim to quash the FIR as the matter has already been forwarded to the supervisory authority of Police and the Inspector General of Police, Kashmir, to be transferred to the Police Station, Sadder.

Court’s Decision:

The State Counsel was not able to meet all grounds raised by the petitioner as the petition was not made available to him, thereby, the court directed the registry to provide him with a copy of petition and status report, the court further ordered the Union Territory administration to respond by May 20, that is before the next hearing. There was no interim relief granted to the petitioner.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Madras HC Reaffirms Trial Court’s Decree in Case of Thimmaraya & Ors. V. Gowrammal

A Civil Revision Petition was filed by three petitioners against the dismissal of their application on the file of the Sub-Judge, Hosur. The case...

Delhi High Court Disposes Ashok Arora’s Appeal Against Suspension From Supreme Court Bar Association

In the present Petition, Senior Advocate Ashok Arora challenged an Order passed by a Single Judge bench. The Order held that Mr Arora had...

Allahabad High Court Dismisses Application To Quash Prima Facie Allegations of Criminal Intimidation and Outraging Modesty

Allahabad High Court, on 17th November 2020, dismissed an application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and refused to quash the charge sheet (dated...

Delhi High Court Prohibits Gathering in Public Places To Celebrate Chhat Puja

The Order had come in a Writ Petition moved by Shri Durga Jan Seva Trust. The Petition sought to quash and set aside an...

Bombay High Court Directs State To Pass Tribe Claim Within Two Weeks, Refuses To Intervene on Merits of Claim Itself

The Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S.S. Shinde and Madhav Jayajirao Jamdar passed an order on 17th November 2020 in...

Kerala High Court Dismisses Petition by Allocating Respondent To Vacancy in IFS Cadre

On 16th November 2020, the Division Bench at Kerala High Court, consisting of Honourable Justice A.M. Shaffique and Honourable Justice Gopinath. P heard the...

AP High Court: If an Auction Is Conducted by a Cooperative Bank, the Property Ceases to be Property of the State

A single-judge bench consisting of honourable justice Ninala Jayasurya gave orders on the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The petition challenges the action...

Madras HC Rules in Favour of the Authorities in FMGE Examination, Finds Writ Petitions Against the Exam Void of Merit

Three aspirants of Foreign Medical Examinations moved to the High Court by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. They...

Hong Kong High Court Rules for Independent Mechanisms To Be Set up To Deal With Complaints Against Police Officers

The present suit was brought by a journalist association because of the police brutality that the protestors faced in the protests against the China...

Madras High Court Maintains That Government Policy Is To Prioritize Own State’s Candidates and Sets Aside Nativity Certificate Rejection Order

Varsha Totagi, a NEET aspirant filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. She had been denied Nativity Certificate without which...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -