Karnataka HC: Quash FIR against Troll Maga, says it’s a case of Abuse of Authority & Power

Must Read

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by...

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Follow us

Facts of the case

On 26.05.2019, FIR No.91/2019 was registered in Srirampura Police Station, Bengaluru against Jayakanth alleging that he had uploaded defamatory posts about former Prime Minister Shri. H. D. Devegowda, Chief Minister Shri. H. D. Kumaraswamy and Shri. Nikhil Kumaraswamy on ‘Facebook’ and ‘Instagram pages captioned as ‘Troll Maga’, by Pradeep Kumar S.P., General Secretary of State JDS Legal Cell.

Learnt, Jaykanth S. approached the City Civil Court, Bengaluru seeking for Anticipatory bail. On 10th June 2019, the learned LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru granted anticipatory bail with a direction to surrender before the Police within one week therefrom.

When Jaykanth followed by the instructions of the court, appeared before Police. Deliberately, police refused to acknowledge his visit to the Police Station on that day, Petitioner went to the Police Station on the next day with his counsel and surety. Police not only refused to accept the surety but on the other hand, issued a notice to the petitioner stating that he had violated bail condition.

Later, Police again picked up Jaykanth from his residence in connection with second FIR bearing No.99/2019 registered on 23rd June 2019. Feeling aggrieved, Jaykanth filed Criminal petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash FIR No. 99/2019 registered in Sriramapura Police Station, Bengaluru and all further proceedings thereon, before the Karnataka high court, Bengaluru.

“Sec 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Saving of inherent powers of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

Arguments

Shri. Aruna Shyam, learned Advocate for petitioner urged following grounds in support of the petition:

  • That the petitioner has not committed any offence;
  • That FIRs have been registered at the behest of ruling party workers;
  • that police have acted in a high-handed manner and taken the petitioner into custody by registering the second FIR to defeat the bail order granted by the learned Sessions Judge;
  • That the petitioner is an Engineer by profession and hails from a respectable family; and
  • That police have not followed the directions contained in Arneshkumar vs. State of Bihar and another.”

Decision of the Court

After hearing the contentions of both the parties, the court been felt, this is a classic case of abuse of authority and power, the court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 99/2019 registered in Srirampura Police Station and all further proceedings and State shall pay the cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner within one month. Further stated that State shall recover the cost from the salary of officers found guilty in the Departmental Enquiry.

[googlepdf url=”http://libertatem.in/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Jaykanth-vs-State-of-karnataka.pdf” download=”Download Judgement PDF” ]


Contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now. You can also join our Team of Courtroom and regularly contribute cases like the above one.

For more Courtroom Updates, check out our Courtroom Page

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 High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -