Karma, Police: SC ‘unlikes’ charges against couple for posting complaints on Bengaluru Traffic Police FB page

Even as the cause of internet freedom is being championed by stalwart lawyers in the Supreme Court, a two-judge bench on Wednesday quashed proceedings against a couple for posting their grievances on the Bengaluru Traffic Police Facebook page. Faced with charges of assault and criminal intimidation, and refused relief by the Karnataka High Court, the appellant Manik Taneja filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court..In June of 2013, Taneja and his wife had met with an accident with an auto rickshaw, and had paid the hospital expenses for the injuries sustained by one of the auto’s passengers. Since the matter was resolved amicably, no FIR was lodged against the couple. However, there was to be no happy ending, as Kasim, a Police Inspector summoned them to the city’s Pulakeshinagar station. What allegedly ensued thereafter was a classic case of police harassment, with Kasim asking the couple to produce certain documents. When Taneja and his wife questioned this, stating that no FIR had been lodged, Kasim allegedly threatened them, saying that he would drag the couple to court..The aggrieved couple then proceeded to post their version of events on the Bangalore Traffic Police Facebook page. The Inspector took offence to the post and subsequently registered an FIR against the couple under Sections 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the IPC. The Karnataka High Court refused to quash the charges, following which the couple approached the Supreme Court..The counsel for the appellant, Bharadwaj Iyengar refuted the charges, contending that the Facebook page of the Bengaluru traffic police itself is a public forum meant for citizens to discuss and post their grievances. The respondent’s counsel argued that by posting a comment on the Facebook page, the appellants obstructed the public duty of the traffic police and his staff by publicly making baseless allegations..A Bench comprising Justices R Banumathi and V Gopala Gowda highlighted the fact that for a prosecution to be quashed at the initial stage, the uncontroverted allegations made should, prima facie, establish the offence. While determining the applicability of Section 353 to the case, the Court held,.“There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the appellants either assaulted the respondents or used criminal force to prevent the second respondent (the Inspector) from discharging his official duty.”.On the criminal intimidation charge, the Court held,.“…it appears that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to cause alarm in the minds of the second respondent causing obstruction in discharge of his duty.”.The Bench also stated that the power of a High Court to quash proceedings under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly and did not comment on the Karnataka High Court’s decision to consider discretion the better part of valour while refusing to intervene in the case. Thus, the order of the High Court was set aside and the FIR against the couple quashed..This is not the first time Facebook users have borne the brunt of arbitrary police interference. In May 2012, two Air India employees were booked under 66 (A) of the IT act for putting up content against a trade union leader and some politicians. In the same year, the draconian provision reared its ugly head again as two girls were arrested for questioning the shutdown in Mumbai on Facebook after the demise of Bal Thackeray..Freedom of expression aside, what is also worrying is the the fact that a case which appears to be so mind-numbingly petty can find its way to the highest judicial authority in the country. You could argue that this is clearly a symptom of an ailing legal system. For those who balk at pendency figures and the rate at which they seem to be expanding, this is one of the many reasons why the Apex Court’s burden never seems to ease.