SC refuses to revisit verdict declining FIR against Anurag Thakur over 'goli maro' remark
Advertisement
New Delhi, Aug 3 : The Supreme Court has dismissed a review petition filed by CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat seeking reconsideration of its April 29 judgment, which had declined to interfere with the refusal to direct registration of an FIR against BJP MP Anurag Thakur over his alleged "goli maro" speech during the anti-CAA protests in 2020.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta rejected Karat's plea, saying that it found no ground to revisit the earlier verdict.
"We have gone through the review petition as well as the grounds in support thereof. We do not find any error, much less apparent, in the order impugned, warranting its reconsideration," the apex court said in its order passed on July 29.
It also rejected an application seeking listing of the review petition for an oral hearing in open court. "Application for listing the present review petition in open court is rejected," the Justice Nath-led Bench ordered, adding that the review petition stood dismissed and all pending applications, if any, also stood disposed of.
In its April 29 judgment, the Supreme Court partly allowed Karat's appeal by disagreeing with the legal reasoning adopted by the Delhi High Court and the trial court that prior sanction under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was necessary before directing registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC.
The apex court had clarified that prior sanction is required only at the stage of taking cognisance by the court and not for registration of an FIR or investigation.
It had held that an order passed by a judicial magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC directing investigation is a pre-cognisance exercise and does not amount to taking cognisance of an offence.
The Justice Nath-led Bench had observed that making FIR registration contingent on prior sanction would be contrary to the statutory scheme governing criminal investigations.
However, despite disapproving the reasoning of the courts below on the issue of prior sanction, the Supreme Court had upheld the ultimate conclusion refusing registration of an FIR after independently examining the material on record.
The April 29 judgment had said that, upon a careful consideration of the speeches, the status report filed before the trial court and the reasons recorded by the courts below, "no cognizable offence is made out".
The case arose from Karat's plea seeking registration of an FIR against Anurag Thakur and then BJP MP Pravesh Verma over their alleged hate speeches made during the anti-CAA protests in January 2020.
After the police declined to act on her complaint, she approached the trial court under Section 156(3) CrPC, which refused to direct registration of an FIR on the ground that prior sanction was required.
The Delhi High Court had affirmed that view, prompting Karat to move the Supreme Court.
While the apex court corrected the legal position on the requirement of prior sanction in its April verdict, it ultimately declined to order registration of an FIR, holding that the speeches in question did not disclose the commission of any cognisable offence.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta rejected Karat's plea, saying that it found no ground to revisit the earlier verdict.
"We have gone through the review petition as well as the grounds in support thereof. We do not find any error, much less apparent, in the order impugned, warranting its reconsideration," the apex court said in its order passed on July 29.
It also rejected an application seeking listing of the review petition for an oral hearing in open court. "Application for listing the present review petition in open court is rejected," the Justice Nath-led Bench ordered, adding that the review petition stood dismissed and all pending applications, if any, also stood disposed of.
In its April 29 judgment, the Supreme Court partly allowed Karat's appeal by disagreeing with the legal reasoning adopted by the Delhi High Court and the trial court that prior sanction under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was necessary before directing registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC.
The apex court had clarified that prior sanction is required only at the stage of taking cognisance by the court and not for registration of an FIR or investigation.
It had held that an order passed by a judicial magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC directing investigation is a pre-cognisance exercise and does not amount to taking cognisance of an offence.
The Justice Nath-led Bench had observed that making FIR registration contingent on prior sanction would be contrary to the statutory scheme governing criminal investigations.
However, despite disapproving the reasoning of the courts below on the issue of prior sanction, the Supreme Court had upheld the ultimate conclusion refusing registration of an FIR after independently examining the material on record.
The April 29 judgment had said that, upon a careful consideration of the speeches, the status report filed before the trial court and the reasons recorded by the courts below, "no cognizable offence is made out".
The case arose from Karat's plea seeking registration of an FIR against Anurag Thakur and then BJP MP Pravesh Verma over their alleged hate speeches made during the anti-CAA protests in January 2020.
After the police declined to act on her complaint, she approached the trial court under Section 156(3) CrPC, which refused to direct registration of an FIR on the ground that prior sanction was required.
The Delhi High Court had affirmed that view, prompting Karat to move the Supreme Court.
While the apex court corrected the legal position on the requirement of prior sanction in its April verdict, it ultimately declined to order registration of an FIR, holding that the speeches in question did not disclose the commission of any cognisable offence.
Advertisement
Note: The content of this article is sourced from a news agency and has not been edited by the ap7am team.