The Chhattisgarh High Court, on November 23, dismissed a criminal petition seeking action against actor Aamir Khan for his comments on intolerance in the country after 2014..A single-judge Bench of Justice Sanjay K Agrawal declared the petitions as without merit.."I do not find any merit in the instant petition. It deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed, being substanceless and meritless as well," the Bench said..The Court was hearing a petition moved by a lawyer, Dipak Diwan, who had earlier filed a criminal complaint against Aamir Khan for his remarks on 'growing intolerance'. He alleged that the actor had attempted to promote enmity between various groups on the grounds of religion, place of birth etc, and made imputations prejudicial to national integration. (Sections 153-A and 153-B of the Indian Penal Code).Speaking at the Ramnath Goenka Award Ceremony in 2015, Khan had said that he felt "alarmed" by incidents of intolerance, and that his wife Kiran Rao even suggested that they should leave the country. He had also said that it was important for political parties to take a stand and a "sense of insecurity grows when we don't see that happening.".His statements were made against the backdrop of the Dadri lynching case, where an elderly man was lynched on the suspicion that he was consuming and storing beef..Diwan's specific grievance was that the Magistrate had taken cognizance of his complaint, proceeded to examine witnesses and, thereafter, refused to proceed on the ground that the sanction required to prosecute offences under Sections 153-A and Section 153-B had not been obtained. Section 196, and Section 196(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires sanction of the State to be obtained before the Magistrate can take cognizance of a criminal complaint for offences under Section 153-A and Section 153-B of the Indian Penal Code..Diwan also took issue with an Additional Sessions Judge's affirmation of the Magistrate's order dismissing the complaint..I do not find any merit in the instant petition. It deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed, being substanceless and meritless as well.Justice Sanjay K Agrawal.The High Court referenced judicial precedents and concluded that the Magistrate had, in fact, taken cognizance of Diwan's complaint. .As the Magistrate had applied his judicial mind in order to proceed in a certain way, cognizance was taken, the High Court found. However, this was erroneously done without government sanction, contrary to requirement for prosecuting offences under Section 153-A and Section 153-B, IPC, the Court found. The Judge added that this error, rendered the entire criminal proceedings without jurisdiction and without authority of law..Ultimately, the Magistrate's order dismissing the complaint because of the lack of sanction was affirmed by the High Court. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge confirming the Magistrate's decision was also upheld by the High Court..Advocate Amiyakant Tiwari argued for the petitioner, Advocate DK Gwalre appeared for Khan and Deputy Government Advocate Ravi Bhagat represented the State..[Read Order]
The Chhattisgarh High Court, on November 23, dismissed a criminal petition seeking action against actor Aamir Khan for his comments on intolerance in the country after 2014..A single-judge Bench of Justice Sanjay K Agrawal declared the petitions as without merit.."I do not find any merit in the instant petition. It deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed, being substanceless and meritless as well," the Bench said..The Court was hearing a petition moved by a lawyer, Dipak Diwan, who had earlier filed a criminal complaint against Aamir Khan for his remarks on 'growing intolerance'. He alleged that the actor had attempted to promote enmity between various groups on the grounds of religion, place of birth etc, and made imputations prejudicial to national integration. (Sections 153-A and 153-B of the Indian Penal Code).Speaking at the Ramnath Goenka Award Ceremony in 2015, Khan had said that he felt "alarmed" by incidents of intolerance, and that his wife Kiran Rao even suggested that they should leave the country. He had also said that it was important for political parties to take a stand and a "sense of insecurity grows when we don't see that happening.".His statements were made against the backdrop of the Dadri lynching case, where an elderly man was lynched on the suspicion that he was consuming and storing beef..Diwan's specific grievance was that the Magistrate had taken cognizance of his complaint, proceeded to examine witnesses and, thereafter, refused to proceed on the ground that the sanction required to prosecute offences under Sections 153-A and Section 153-B had not been obtained. Section 196, and Section 196(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires sanction of the State to be obtained before the Magistrate can take cognizance of a criminal complaint for offences under Section 153-A and Section 153-B of the Indian Penal Code..Diwan also took issue with an Additional Sessions Judge's affirmation of the Magistrate's order dismissing the complaint..I do not find any merit in the instant petition. It deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed, being substanceless and meritless as well.Justice Sanjay K Agrawal.The High Court referenced judicial precedents and concluded that the Magistrate had, in fact, taken cognizance of Diwan's complaint. .As the Magistrate had applied his judicial mind in order to proceed in a certain way, cognizance was taken, the High Court found. However, this was erroneously done without government sanction, contrary to requirement for prosecuting offences under Section 153-A and Section 153-B, IPC, the Court found. The Judge added that this error, rendered the entire criminal proceedings without jurisdiction and without authority of law..Ultimately, the Magistrate's order dismissing the complaint because of the lack of sanction was affirmed by the High Court. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge confirming the Magistrate's decision was also upheld by the High Court..Advocate Amiyakant Tiwari argued for the petitioner, Advocate DK Gwalre appeared for Khan and Deputy Government Advocate Ravi Bhagat represented the State..[Read Order]
