Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

Punjab and Haryana High Court quashes FIR lodged apparently on SP’s instructions

Observes petitioner didn’t use casteist remarks publicly
  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
Advertisement

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, July 22

Advertisement

More than three years after an FIR was registered under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and other provisions of law “apparently on the instructions of a Superintendent of Police”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the same.

One of the accused is said to have shared a video clip with the comment, “When general public will get same courage/enthusiasm; the IPS/IAS will not get place, who day and night commit wrong acts with the public”.

Advertisement

Justice Sandeep Moudgil observed that accused Rahul demanded the arrest of policemen involved in the fake encounter of his cousin, after which he was taken into custody and tortured. His foot was fractured for raising voice against the encounter.

An FIR was registered against the policemen on April 22, 2021. Two video clips, wherein Rahul was seen begging for justice against the atrocities of the police, was circulated in social media. Petitioner and social activist Jitender Jatasra came across the video and is stated to have shared the clip with the comment.

After hearing petitioner’s counsel PK Rapria and rival contentions, Justice Moudgil said the impugned FIR was lodged apparently on the instructions of the SP through an ASI, wherein it was recorded that Rahul had commented that the police officer belonged to the Scheduled Caste and had, as such, made wrong and hateful comments.

“The contents of the FIR nowhere remotely suggest that the petitioner used any casteist remarks indicating the name of the respondent-officer in public place. Neither does the FIR show as to such-and-such abusive and casteist words were uttered by the petitioner or the main accused Rahul and that too specially naming the respondent or any other officer,” the judge asserted, while quashing the FIR.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Home tlbr_img2 Opinion tlbr_img3 Classifieds tlbr_img4 Videos tlbr_img5 E-Paper