Background and FIR Details:
The Gujarat High Court recently quashed an FIR against Yash Vishnudutt Tiwari, who was accused of hurting religious sentiments through offensive YouTube videos targeting the Arya Samaj and its founder, Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati. The FIR, lodged by the Ahmedabad cybercrime cell in November 2023, cited violations under Sections 295A, 505(1)(b), and 153A of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. The complainant, Rajeshbhai Pravinchandra Parekh, alleged that Tiwari used abusive language in his YouTube channel "Arya Samaj Exposed" and shared memes on a Telegram channel, which disturbed public peace in Ahmedabad.
Court's Decision to Quash the FIR:
The High Court, presided over by Justice Nirzar Desai, decided to quash the FIR after the complainant expressed his unwillingness to pursue the case further. Tiwari’s legal counsel informed the court that the dispute had been resolved amicably between the parties through the intervention of trusted members of society. Given this resolution, the court concluded that continuing the criminal proceedings would cause unnecessary hardship to the accused and result in an abuse of the legal process.
Legal Considerations and Precedents:
In its ruling, the court took into account the facts presented, the resolution between the parties, and relevant Supreme Court decisions. The court emphasized that further continuation of the trial would be futile and would not serve the interests of justice. Exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court quashed the FIR, acknowledging that the proceedings would otherwise constitute harassment.
Imposition of Fine:
Although the FIR was quashed, the court imposed a fine of ₹50,000 on Tiwari as litigation costs. This decision aligns with a similar case in which the Gujarat High Court had imposed a fine of ₹1 lakh on an individual for making offensive comments against the Arya Samaj on a YouTube channel. The fine in Tiwari’s case reflects the court’s effort to balance the resolution of the dispute with the need to deter such actions in the future.
Implications for Freedom of Expression and Legal Precedents:
This case highlights the delicate balance between freedom of expression and the protection of religious sentiments in India. While the court acknowledged the resolution between the parties, it also recognized the potential harm caused by offensive online content, thereby justifying the imposition of a fine. The judgment serves as a reminder that even in cases where disputes are amicably resolved, the judiciary may still impose penalties to address broader societal concerns and prevent misuse of freedom of speech.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.