Gurjatinder Pal Singh vs State of Punjab

M.M.S. Bedi, J.—Through the instant petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner has sought the quashing of FIR No. 45 dated June 8, 2005 (annexure P-1) registered under Sections 124-A, 153-B IPC at Police Station Kotwali, Amritsar, and the order annexure P-2 dated July 10, 2008, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, ordering the framing of charges against the petitioner under Sections 124A and 153B IPC.

As per the allegations in the FIR registered at the instance of Inspector Harinder Kumar SHO Police Station Kotwali, Amritsar, the complainant alongwith other police officials was present in Sri Akal Takht Sahib regarding arrangements of the massacre day, where Swaran Singh son of Tilak Raj, K.S. Suri, Karam Singh also joined them where Sri Akhand Path Sahib was organized on June 4, 2005 by Shrimoni Committee Sri Darbar Sahib in the memory of the martyrs killed on June 6, 1984 under operation Blue Star. Bhog was concluded at 8 O''clock on June 6, 2005. Various religious ceremonies conducted in presence of Dr. Jagjit Singh Chohan, Simranjit Singh Mann, President of Shiromani Akali Dal, Amritsar, Parkash Singh Badal, President of Akali Dal (Badal) (Chief Minister, Punjab), Bibi Jagir Kaur, President, Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee and other leaders and renowned personalities. After the completion of various religious ceremonies, Simranjit Singh Mann alongwith his workers came down and while standing opposite to Sri Akal Takht Sahib, started giving speech to the people present there that it would definitely make a buffer State between Pakistan and Hindustan name of which would be Khalistan. The Constitution of India is a worthless/useless book for the Sikhs and that they do not follow it. The name of gallery of Sri Akal Takht Sahib was kept as Sant Jarnail Singh Shahid Gallery. In support of Simranjit Singh Mann, his workers and partners raised aggressive slogans and naked swords were raised in the air and the slogans were raised "Bhindrawala zindabad", "Bhindrawala Saint Soldier who woke up the sleeping community", :Bhaniyarawala Murdahad", "Ashutosh Murdabad", "Shiv Sena Murdabad", "RSS Murdabad", "Khalistan Zindabad", "Dhoti- Topi Di Sarkar Raj Karegi Jamna par", Hind, Hindu Hindustan Leke Rahange Khalistan.

Jagjit Singh Chauhan had made certain statements against the Indian Government and criticized the operation Blue Star of 1984 in Sri Darbar Sahib. He has stated that he was for Khalistan and Khalistan would be created positively. Literature about Khalsa Raj party, the main stream of Khalistan party was also distributed. Statement of Swaran Singh is to the effect that at the time when speeches were made by Simranjit Singh Mann, the petitioner alongwith other accused were present and they responded to the speeches by raising provocations and anti-national slogans.

The short question which is required to be determined in the present case is whether responding to the provocations speeches or anti national slogans would bring the petitioner within the ambit of penal provisions under Sections 124A and 153 B IPC. Section 124A IPC defines sedition as follows :

124A. Sedition : Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards. [* * *] the Government established by law in [India], [* * *] shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.

Explanation 1. - The expression "disaffection" includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.

Explanation 2. - Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.

Explanation 3. - Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.

Section 153-B IPC reads as follows :-

153B. Imputations, assertions prejudicial national-integration :

(1) Whoever, by words either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, -

(a) Makes or publishes any imputation that any class of persons cannot, by reason or their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established or uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, or

(b) Asserts, counsels, advises, propagates or publishes that any class or persons shall, by reason of their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, be denied or deprived of their rights as citizens of India, or

(c) Makes or publishes any assertion, counsel, plea or appeal concerning the obligation of any class of persons, by reason of their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste of community, and such assertion, counsel, pleas or appeal causes or is likely to cause disharmony or feelings of enmity or hatred or ill-will between such members and other persons,

Shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

(2) Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (1), in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall be liable to fine.]

If the allegations leveled against the petitioner are taken on their face value, in nut shell, he is alleged to have responded to the speeches given by Jagjit Singh Chauhan and Simranjit Singh Mann while slogans were being raised. The abovesaid provisions had been taken up by Hon''ble Supreme Court in Balwant Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab, . Taking into consideration the provisions of Section 124A and Section 153 B IPC, the Apex Court had held that mere casual raising of some slogans, a couple of times by accused persons without intention to incite people to create disorder would neither constitute any threat to Government of India nor it gives rise to feeling of enmity or hatred among different communities or religious or other groups. In staid circumstances, the provisions of Sections 124A and 153B IPC will not be attracted. It was further observed that a plain reading of Section 124A IPC would show that its application would be attracted only when the accused brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India, by words either written or spoken or visible signs or representations etc. In the said case, the prosecution case against appellants before the Apex Court was that in a crowded place in front of the Neelam Theatre in Chandigarh on October 31, 1984, the day Prime Minister of India was assassinated, after coming out from their respective offices after the duty hours, raised slogans "Khalistan Zindabad", "Raj Karega Khalsa" etc. Similar question came, up before this Court in Lt. Col. Partap Single (Retd.) v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, Crl. Misc. No. 11926-M of 1991, decided on December 18, 1992. In the said case, FIR had been registered against the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner had convened a press conference where he made an open speech that in the war of Independence of India, majority sacrifices were made by Sikhs but after independence, Brahmanical Samajwaji capitalists could not be insulted Sikhs but also committed many inhuman acts on Sikhs through their agencies due to which he was no longer any faith of one community in another and that a separate human land named Khalistan would be created.

Taking into consideration the nature of the allegations, the FIR and all the criminal proceedings in FIR under Sections 124A and 153B IPC read with Section 4 (2) of the Act of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention Act) had been quashed. Reliance had been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Kedar Nath Singh Vs. State of Bihar, . The relevant portion of the judgment of Kedar Nath Singh''s case reads as follows :-

The provisions of the sections read as a whole along with the explanations, make it reasonably clear that the sections aim at rendering penal only such activities as would be intended, or have tendency to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence. As already pointed out, the explanations appended to the main body of the section make it clear that criticism of public measures or comment on Government action, however, strongly worded, would be within reasonable limits and would be consistent with the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. It is only when the words, written or spoken etc. which have the pernicious tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order that the law steps in to prevent such activities in the interest of public order. So construed, the section, in our opinion, strikes the correct balance between individual fundamental rights and the interest of public order.

It is clear from the abovesaid observations that comments criticizing Government action would fall within the ambit of freedom of speech and expression but when the words raising or spoken have pernicious tendency or when there is intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order, steps are required to be taken in the interest of public order. Taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner in this case, to have responded to the slogans raised by Simranjit Singh Mann and Dr. Jagjit Singh Chauhan, is neither an act of sedition nor it would fall within the mischief of Section 153B which makes imputations, assertions which are prejudicial to national-integration as punishable. This Court in Crl. Misc. titled Simranjit Singh Mann v. State of Punjab has quashed the FIR u/s 124 A of the IPC against Simranjit Singh Mann which was registered on the allegations that he had raised slogans of anti-nation "Khalistan Zindabad instigating common people and Dilwan Singh, human bomb who assassinated the Chief Minister.

Following the judgments of Balwant Singh''s case (supra), Kedar Nath Singh''s case (supra), Lt. Col. Partap Singh''s case (supra) and Simranjit Singh Mann''s case (supra) the FIR qua the petitioner deserves to be quashed as no offence is made out if the allegations are considered on their face value. The present case falls within the parameters laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court for quashing of an State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, , laying down that when allegations in an FIR taken on their face value prima facie constitute no offence, the High Court can, exercising inherent jurisdiction, quash the FIR and criminal proceedings.

In view of the above discussion FIR No. 45 dated June 8, 2005 (annexure P- 1) registered under Sections 124-A, 153-B IPC at Police Station Kotwali, Amritsar, and all the criminal proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner only are hereby quashed. The order of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, forming an opinion to frame charges against they petitioner under Sections 124 A and 153 B IPC is also quashed.