Summary
Multiple FIRs and complaints concerning the same 21 April 2020 broadcast were quashed, while the transferred Mumbai FIR remained open to investigation excluding criminal defamation. Journalistic freedom did not confer immunity from lawful investigation. Transfer to the CBI was refused, and quashing of the surviving FIR was left to ordinary criminal remedies. A separate petition concerning another broadcast was dismissed with liberty to seek those remedies. Existing protection against coercive steps was extended for three weeks.
Issues
- Whether multiple complaints founded on the same broadcast could proceed.
- Whether the investigation should be transferred to the CBI.
- Whether the surviving FIRs should be quashed under Article 32.
- Whether criminal defamation could form part of the police investigation.
Provisions considered
- Articles 19(1)(a), 19(2) and 32, Constitution of IndiaProtected speech against duplicative criminal processes while preserving lawful investigation and declining to bypass available criminal remedies on the surviving FIRs. (¶¶ 31, 32, 33, 34, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53)
Held
- Successive FIRs on the same incident or transaction are impermissible, subject to counter-cases and distinct incidents. The identical complaints concerning the 21 April broadcast shared the same foundation; their multiplicity abused process and burdened protected journalistic expression. The specified duplicates were quashed and further proceedings elsewhere on that same cause barred, leaving the transferred Mumbai FIR intact. (¶¶ 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 51, 53)
- Journalistic freedom is central to Article 19(1)(a), subject to Article 19(2), and does not immunise a journalist from lawful investigation. Declining to entertain quashing under Article 32 was distinct from holding the petition non-maintainable; the petitioner could pursue section 482 and other criminal remedies before the competent forum. The merits were expressly left undecided. (¶¶ 32, 34, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54)
- Transfer to the CBI is an extraordinary power exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances. An accused cannot choose the agency or dictate lawful interrogation. The duration and subjects of questioning, criticism of the police, social-media exchanges and the complainant’s interview did not establish the requisite grounds for transfer here. (¶¶ 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 53)
- The criminal-defamation procedure requires a complaint by an aggrieved person subject to the statutory scheme; an FIR or section 156(3) direction is not its substitute. Criminal defamation was excluded from this investigation, making determination of the constitutional challenge to section 499 unnecessary in these proceedings. (¶¶ 45, 46, 47, 53)
- The separate Pydhonie FIR concerning another broadcast lacked the multiple-proceedings basis that justified intervention in the first petition. That petition was dismissed with liberty to use available remedies. Earlier protection against coercive steps was extended for three weeks; security was to be considered by Mumbai’s Commissioner according to threat perception. (¶¶ 50, 52, 54, 55)
Result
First writ petition disposed of with duplicate FIRs/complaints quashed, Mumbai investigation preserved excluding criminal defamation, and CBI transfer refused. Second writ petition dismissed with liberty. Existing coercive-step protection extended three weeks; security request to be considered according to threat. State’s interim application dismissed with liberty to approach the competent court; merits of allegations left open.