Plea Filed to Quash FIRs for Derogatory Statement Against Sufi Saint, Parties to File Response

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

The Supreme Court recently received a Petition. The Petition sought to quash FIRs and Police Complaints filed against the Petitioner.

Brief Facts of the Case 

The Petitioner is a host of a TV show “Aar Par”. On June 15 2020, a debate telecasted on the show related to Place of Worship Special Provision Act. In the show, Petitioner called Khwaja Moinuddin Chisthi an “attacker” and “looter”.

Thus, several FIRs filed against the Petitioner due to the statement made by him.

Thereafter, the Petitioner after this apologised by a tweet on his Twitter handle saying,”In 1 of my debates, I inadvertently referred to ‘Khilji’ as Chishti. I sincerely apologise for this grave error and the anguish it may have caused to followers of the Sufi saint Moinuddin Chishti, whom I revere. I have in the past sought blessings at his dargah. I regret this error.”

Petitioner’s submissions

Advocate Vivek Jain filed the Petition on behalf of the Petitioner. The Petition seeks to quash the multiple FIRs against the Petitioner.

The Petition said that, “In a well-orchestrated manner- the Petitioner has been made a victim of countrywide filing of false and baseless criminal complaints and FIRs on the one hand, and on the other hand, Petitioner, his family and his crew have been abused unabashedly on social media and by personal messages by unknown persons. The Petition has also received several death threats from various anti-social elements.”

Furthermore, the Petitioner submits he made an “inadvertent error” for which he later apologised. Hence, filing FIRs for a mere ‘slip of the tongue’ is unjust and amounts to undue harassment. The petition also stated, “If this starts happening, where people are dealt with for a slip of the tongue, what will happen? Errors people make. He also profusely apologised.”

Court’s Observation 

Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna heard the matter.

The Respondent, who filed the FIR against the Petitioner, refused to accept service. The Bench proceeded ex parte considering deemed service of summons.

“As per the office report dated 14.07.2020, respondent No. 7 has refused to accept service. In that case, it must be treated as deemed to be served, and the matter proceeded ex-parte against Respondent No. 7 if he does not wish to appear on future dates. The matter will now be considered on August 6”. Further, another Complainant served via Whatsapp and Speed Post did not appear.

The Bench stated that – “also be treated as good service and matter be processed against respondent No. 8 ex-parte if he fails to appear on future dates.”

Due to incomplete Pleadings, the Bench adjourned the Plea. Furthermore, the Bench sought Reply of all the parties within one week. Moreover, even the de-facto Complainants have to file a response.

August 5, 2020, is the next hearing date.


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 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 -