Case Note & Summary
The applicants filed an application before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, seeking to quash First Information Report No. 28/2021 dated 5 February 2021 registered at Police Station Channi, District Akola. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 323, 294, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Media Persons and Media Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage or Loss to Property) Act, 2017. The complaint lodged by the second non-applicant stated that he was a journalist and representative of the Indian Media Foundation, Maharashtra State Committee, and that while he was making inquiries at a Gram Panchayat, the applicants abused him, roughed him up, snatched his identity card, and threatened to kill him. The applicants contended that the complainant was not a media person as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act and that no offence under the Act was made out, warranting quashing of the entire FIR. The State opposed the application, arguing that the allegations clearly made out the offences and that investigation had revealed the complainant showed his identity card, which was snatched. The Court noted that the allegations, if taken at face value, were sufficient to make out offences under the IPC. With respect to the special Act, it examined the definition of media person under Section 2(b) and found that the complainant’s assertions about being a journalist and representing a media foundation prima facie satisfied the statutory ingredients. The Court emphasized that a complaint need not contain all evidence at the FIR stage, and that the investigation would reveal further facts. It concluded that no case for quashing was made out at that preliminary stage. Accordingly, the application was dismissed and the rule discharged.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Offences under IPC - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 323, 294, 504, 506 r/w 34 - Allegations of hurling vulgar abuses, ruffling (Dhakka Bukki), and threatening to kill, if taken at face value, are sufficient to make out a case for the said offences - Held that FIR cannot be quashed on this ground (Paras 6-7). B) Criminal Law - Media Persons Protection - Definition of Media Person - Maharashtra Media Persons and Media Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage or Loss to Property) Act, 2017, Sections 2(b), 3, 4 - The complainant stated he is a journalist and office bearer of Indian Media Foundation, which prima facie satisfies the definition of media person - Held that at the investigation stage, the FIR discloses an offence, and quashing is not warranted; the truth can be determined at trial (Paras 8-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the First Information Report should be quashed for failing to establish that the complainant was a media person under the Maharashtra Media Persons and Media Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage or Loss to Property) Act, 2017, and for lack of prima facie offences under the Indian Penal Code
Final Decision
Application dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- To constitute an offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Media Persons and Media Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage or Loss to Property) Act
- 2017
- the complainant must be a media person as defined under Section 2(b)
- At the stage of investigation
- if the complaint prima facie alleges such status and violence
- the FIR should not be quashed
- Allegations in FIR taken at face value sufficient to make out case under IPC
- Complaint need not contain evidence at this stage
