The way to initiate judicial proceedings against Maharashtra Navnirman Sena chief Raj Thackeray have been cleared by Supreme Court on Monday in connection to a case making inflammatory speeches against north Indians residing in the western state of Maharashtra.
The Supreme Court on Monday quashed Raj Thackeray's petition seeking annulling of trial in a Jharkhand’s district court and challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the court to trial him in connection with the alleged speech. The Court not only dismissed his petitions but also directed him to appear before the concerned court to face any such trial.
The apex court, denying the request seeking exemption from appearing-in-person said, ‘if he wants to be exempted from attending courts, he should seek relief from the Jharkhand High Court.’
A two-member bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and MK Sharma rejecting plea of Thackeray's counsel advised him to see India beyond Maharashtra. The Court also turned down the counsel’s contention that his client’s speech was not inflammatory, not intentional to any particular region and it was out of the ambit of Jharkhand’s administration to file cases against his client.
Jharkhand police had filed the case against Raj Thackeray under Section 504 of the IPC (Indian Penal Code) for arousing sentiments of public through rabble rousing speeches against north Indian people living in different parts of Maharashtra.
The counsel Rohington Nariman points out that police had no right to file report against his client. When he further said that since the alleged speech was made in Maharashtra so to file report comes beyond the ambit of Jharkhand police, the bench said: ‘These type of rabble-rousing speeches could be tried anywhere. Even charges could be framed on the basis of suspicion, observed the Justices.’
Nariman was trying to impress the bench that under Section 482 of the CrPC the concerned court lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the case against his client who is a resident of Mumbai.
Justice Pasayat said: “There is nothing in Section 482 of CrPC to debar the court to try it. If we consider it, then the provision of Section 197 will be redundant.”
Turning down all the contention of the counsel, the Supreme Court quashed the plea of Raj Thackeray. This way the trial against Thackeray in Jharkhand has almost been cleared.
Earlier, taking cognizance of the complaint, the Jamshedpur’s judicial magistrate had summoned Raj Thackeray and ordered his prosecution under Section 153A, 153B, and 504 of the IPC in relation to triggering disharmony between two communities through inflammatory speeches.
The MNS supremo had then moved to Jharkhand High Court, which dropped the two charges under Section 153A and B of IPC, but upheld the charges under Section 504.
|
|
Read More: Mumbai
Comments:
