Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1558 (BOM)

Natthu v. State of Maharashtra

2021-11-18

M.S.SONAK, PUSHPA V.GANEDIWALA

body2021
JUDGMENT M. S. Sonak, J. - Heard Shri A. M. Tirukh, learned counsel for the applicants, and Mrs. M. A. Barbde learned A.P.P. for non-applicant no. 1/State. The non-applicant no. 2 though served but, neither present nor represented. 2. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. This is an application seeking to quash the First Information Report (FIR) dated 05.02.2021 vide Crime No. 28/2021 registered under Sections 323, 294, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Media Persons and Media Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage or Loss to Property) Act, 2017 (in short, "the said Act") registered at Police Station Channi, Tah. Patur, Dist. Akola, based on the complaint lodged by the non-applicant no. 2. 4. Mr. A. M. Tirukh, learned counsel for the applicants submits that even if the allegations in the FIR are accepted in their entirety, the offenses alleged against the applicants have not been made out. In particular, he submits that there is nothing on record or in the complaint lodged that the non-applicant no. 2 was indeed a "media person" as defined under Section 2(1) of the said Act. He submits that unless it is established that the complainant was a "media person", no offense under Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act can be said to have been made out. He submits that on this ground, the FIR in its entirety is required to be quashed. In any case, the FIR in question, which alleges the commission of an offense under Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act is required to be quashed. 5. Mrs. M. A. Barbde, learned A.P.P. for State submits that allegations in the complaint and FIR very clearly make out a case in respect of offenses, as alleged. She points out that the non-applicant no. 2, in the complaint had very clearly stated that he was a media person and further in the course of the investigation, it was revealed that the non-applicant no. 2 had also shown his Identity Card, which was snatched by the applicants, who threatened him with dire consequences. She submits that the investigation is in progress and therefore, this is not at all a case for quashing of the FIR. 6. We have considered the rival contentions and also perused the material on record. 2 had also shown his Identity Card, which was snatched by the applicants, who threatened him with dire consequences. She submits that the investigation is in progress and therefore, this is not at all a case for quashing of the FIR. 6. We have considered the rival contentions and also perused the material on record. In the complaint/FIR, the non-applicant no. 2 has stated that he is a journalist and also office bearer/representative of the Indian Media Foundation, Maharashtra State Committee. There are allegations that on 02.02.2021, he had visited Andharsangvi Gram Panchyat because had received information about some fight over the construction of the community hall. There, he noticed that one Sudarshan Tajne was beaten up. The complaint alleges that respondent no. 2 was making inquiries and at that time, the applicants hurled vulgar abuses at him and ruffled him (Dhakka Bukki). The complaint alleges that non-applicant no. 2 then informed the applicants that he was a journalist and he even showed them his Identity Card. The complaint alleges that the applicants stated that they knew that the non-applicant no. 2 is a journalist and then they snatched his Identity Card and even threatened to kill the non-applicant no. 2. 7. According to us, the aforesaid allegations, if taken at their face value, are quite sufficient to make out a case for the offenses under Sections 323, 294, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Insofar as the offenses under Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act are concerned, a reference is necessary to the definition of "media person" under Section 2(b) of the said Act, and the same reads as follows:- "2(b). "Media Person" means a person whose principal avocation is that of a journalist and who is employed as a journalist, either on regular or contract basis, in, or in relation to, one or more media instututions and includes an Editor, Sub-Editor, News Editor, Reporter, Correspondent, Cartoonist, News-Photographer, Television Cameraman, Leader-Writer, Feature-Writer, Copy-tester and Proof-Reader, but does not include any such person who- (i) is employed mainly in a managerial or adminstrative capacity; or (ii) being employed in a supervisory capacity, performs, either by the nature of the duties attached to his office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature;" 9. Section 3 of the said Act then provides that any act of violence against the media person or damage or loss of property to media person or media institutions shall be prohibited. Section 4 of the said Act provides that any offender, who commits and attempts or abets or instigates or provokes the commission of any act of violence in contravention of provisions of Section 3 of the said Act, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, which may extend to fifty thousand rupees, or with both. 10. Therefore, Mr. Tirukh, learned counsel for the applicants is quite right in his submission that to make out a case of an offense under Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act, the basic prerequisite is that the complainant has to be a "media person" or "media institution". Now, Section 2(b) of the said Act has defined "media person" means a person whose principal avocation is that of a journalist and who is employed as a journalist, either on a regular or contract basis, in, or in relation to, one or more media institutions and includes an Editor, Sub-Editor, News Editor, Reporter, Correspondent, Cartoonist, News-Photographer, Television Cameraman, Leader-Writer, Feature-Writer, Copy-tester, and Proof-Reader. 11. In the complaint/FIR, the complainant has very clearly stated that his principal avocation is of a journalist and further he is employed and engaged or in any case represents Indian Media Foundation, Maharashtra State Committee. This means that the ingredients necessary for constituting the offense in the said Act are prima facie present. In the course of the investigation, no doubt, there may or there may not be further evidence as to the precise status of the non-applicant no. 2. However, at this stage, we cannot say that the allegations in the complaint do not even prima facie disclose that the non-applicant no. 2 is a media person as defined under Section 2(b) of the said Act. 12. The complaint/FIR need not always contain the evidence by which the complainant or the prosecution will have to prove the offense. In this case, the complainant refers to his status and such status at least prima facie suggests that the non-applicant no. 2 was a "media person" as defined under Section 2(b) of the said Act. There are allegations about violence against the non-applicant no. In this case, the complainant refers to his status and such status at least prima facie suggests that the non-applicant no. 2 was a "media person" as defined under Section 2(b) of the said Act. There are allegations about violence against the non-applicant no. 2 in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 of the said Act. Ultimately, whether such allegations are correct or not, which will have to be determined in the course of the trial. At the trial, it will be open to the applicants as well to question the precise credentials of the non-applicant no. 2. The investigations in this matter are yet to be completed. If the investigations reveal that the non-applicant no. 2 was not a media person, then, it is reasonable to proceed on the basis that the prosecution itself may not press for charges under the said Act. At this stage, however, no case is made out to quash the impugned FIR because, according to us, there are allegations in the impugned FIR which at least prima facie indicate the commission of an offense under the said Act. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss this application. 14. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.