Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, September 17
Actor Kangana Ranaut, who landed herself in an issue following her alleged put up on social media on the consumption of beef, was at this time nearly given a clear chit within the matter by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Taking up a petition for registration of an FIR in opposition to the actor beneath the penal legal guidelines, Justice Manoj Bajaj asserted a perusal of the alleged put up didn’t, prima facie, recommend in any method the fee of an offence punishable beneath Section 295-A of the IPC on deliberate and malicious acts supposed to outrage the spiritual emotions of any class by insulting its faith or spiritual beliefs.
Referring to a different put up relied upon by the petitioner-complainant, Justice Bajaj asserted it contained excerpts of a dialog about consuming locations inside and out of doors India. Most importantly, it nowhere confirmed it was posted on the social media by the actor.
“Thus, the facts and circumstances do not indicate commission of any cognizable offence by the respondent,” Justice Bajaj added after listening to the counsel.
The matter was delivered to the HC’s discover after Ludhiana resident Navneet Gopi filed a petition for defense and instructions to the state to conduct an inquiry on his representations/complaints and to take authorized motion in opposition to Kangana.
Gopi’s counsel drew the courtroom’s consideration to the posts on the social media earlier than submitting the contents had damage the spiritual emotions of a selected part of society and it amounted to fee of offence punishable beneath the penal legal guidelines.
The counsel added the petitioner gave two representations on August 5 and August 20 to the Haibowal Station House Officer and Ludhiana Commissioner of Police for registration of an FIR beneath the provisions of Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, Information Technology Act and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. But motion was not taken.
Referring to prayer for shielding life and liberty, Justice Bajaj asserted it was not primarily based on real apprehension as particulars of individuals or organisations behind the threats weren’t talked about within the petition. Even the complaints and representations lacked particulars, as averments concerning menace to him and his household had not been pleaded. “It has under no circumstances been described as to how and in what method the alleged menace was prolonged.
Dismissing the petition, Justice Bajaj asserted: “The court has no hesitation in holding that the petition is vague and misconceived. Therefore, this court is not inclined to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.”