[Manish Maheshwari] Let UP Police come to me, I am not interested in hampering investigation: CV Nagesh to Karnataka High Court

Senior Advocate CV Nagesh, appearing for Twitter India employee Manish Maheshwari, told the Karnataka High Court today that his client did not want to hamper the investigation being carried out by the Uttar Pradesh Police in relation to the Ghaziabad assault video case..Nagesh said,"The proverb is 'If Mohammed can't go to the mountain, the mountain has to go to him.' Let them (Police) come to me. I am not interested in hampering the investigation....".The Court was hearing Maheshwari's challenge to the notice issued to him under Section 41A [notice of appearance before police officer] of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) by the UP Police..Nagesh argued that the Karnataka High Court had the jurisdiction to hear the matter as part of the cause of action arose in the State.."I am a resident of Bengaluru, my office is in Bengaluru, notice came to be issued to be my official email ID which is based in Bangalore. A part of the cause of action arose here, in this State (Karnataka)," argued Nagesh..Under Section 160 of the CrPC [police officer's power to require attendance of witnesses], the legal obligation is for a person who resides at a place that is located within the territorial location of the police station, it was submitted. This, Nagesh contended, is a protection under the law. Otherwise, police can harass people. .At this juncture, the Court asked whether a notice under Section 160 of the CrPC precluded the UP Police from issuing a subsequent notice under Section 41A. "Does it preclude him (Police) to issue a notice under 41A after issuing notice under section 160?" To which, Nagesh said the same does not have the sanction of law. .Adding on, it was said that if a notice under Section 41A has been issued, without issuing notice under Section 160 CrPC, then the scenario would have been different."If I do not fit in any of the classifications as to whom a Section 41A notice can be issued, then there is no sanction of law. I would say that. Then I am entitled to invoke jurisdiction of this High Court under Article 226," was the crux of Nagesh's argument. .The matter will be next heard on July 9..Yesterday, the High Court took strong exception to the way in which media houses had reported a previous hearing in the matter. The Court took specific exception to the use of the word "lambasted" by some media outlets after it was informed that certain news reports mentioned that the Court had "lambasted the Uttar Pradesh police" over their insistence on Maheshwari's appearance..Maheshwari had moved the High Court challenging the notice issued to him under Section 41A of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)This was pursuant to an FIR registered against Twitter and others in the backdrop of a video wherein an elderly Muslim man was asked to shave his beard and was forced to chant "Vande Mataram" and "Jai Shri Ram".The Uttar Pradesh Police had ruled out any "communal angle" and said that Sufi Abdul Samad, the elderly man, was attacked by six men who were unhappy over the tabeez (amulets) he had sold them..The FIR stated that the accused circulated a video of the incident on their Twitter handles without checking its authenticity, that they gave the video a communal angle, and intended to incite communal hatred between religious communities.Maheshwari was issued a notice under Section 41A and directed by the UP Police to appear before Loni Border Police Station as part of the investigation into the Ghaziabad video issue.He then moved the Karnataka High Court, which had granted him interim protection..[BREAKING] Karnataka High Court grants interim protection to Twitter MD Manish Maheshwari in FIR filed by UP Police.Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.