Hate Speech case: Allahabad High Court dismisses plea challenging closure report against CM Yogi Adityanath; slaps ₹1 lakh costs

The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea challenging the closure report in the alleged 2007 hate speech case against Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. [Parvez Parwaz and Anr. vs State of UP and Anr.]

Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh also imposed costs of ₹1 lakh on the petitioner Parvez Parwaz, noting that the petitioner had been involved in the case since 2007 and would have had to spend a significant amount of money on legal counsel.

Hence, the Court said that his resources to contest the litigation should be a matter of investigation.

"The petitioner appears to be a busy body who himself is facing several criminal cases, and he has been fighting this case since 2007. The petitioner must have been incurring huge expenses in engaging counsels to contest this case before the trial Court, this Court and the Supreme Court. His resources to fight/contest the litigation should be a matter of investigation," the Court stated.

The Court was hearing a challenge to a trial court order that dismissed the petitioner's protest plea against the closure report in the case against Yogi Adityanath.

In 2008, the petitioner filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur seeking registration of an FIR under section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) against then MP Yogi Adityanath and others under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, and section 4 of Railways Act. However, the Magistrate rejected the application.

The petitioner then moved Allahabad High Court and in September 2008, the High Court set aside the Magistrate's order and directed the lodging of a first information report (FIR)

Pursuant to the Court's order, an FIR was registered.

However, the petitioner moved the High Court again alleging that the probe was not being conducted in a fair manner.

During the pendency of the plea, the Uttar Pradesh government, on May 3, 2017, refused to grant prosecution sanction under section 197 of CrPC. As a result, a final report was submitted on May 6, 2017.

In February 2018, the High Court, while deciding other issues raised in the case, found no procedural error in the conduct of the investigation, the decision-making process, refusal of prosecution sanction, or any other illegality warranting the court's interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, it dismissed the plea.

The petitioner then moved the Supreme Court, limiting their arguments to the denial of prosecution sanction by the State Government. The apex court dismissed the plea, noting that the investigation was over, and the closure report had been filed, against which a protest plea was pending before a trial court in Gorakhpur. Notably, the issue of sanction was left open.

In November 2022, the trial court rejected the protest plea, stating that the issue related to prosecution sanction had attained finality up to the apex court and could not be revisited. Aggrieved, the petitioner moved the High Court.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the question of legality of the order refusing prosecution sanction was left open by the Supreme Court and it could not be said that the issue had attained finality.

They also argued that while deciding the protest petition against the closure report, the trial court ought to have decided the legality of the order refusing prosecution sanction.

On the other hand, Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal argued that the issue had attained finality and required no adjudication. He also claimed that the petitioner had been indulging in vexatious prosecution of the Chief Minister.

Stating that some forces were working against the Chief Minister to derail the progress of the State, he sought dismissal of the plea.

The Court noted that the only question raised by the petitioner before the Supreme Court was regarding the validity of the order refusing prosecution sanction. It held that since the Supreme Court did not answer the issue and dismissed the appeal, the February 2018 judgment of the High Court would prevail.

"I find that the trial Court has rightly refused to go into the said question once it got decided by the Supreme Court. Once the question of sanction got finally settled, the trial court could not have taken cognizance on the police report or on the protest petition as the accused, being a public servant, no cognizance could be taken without there being sanction by the competent authority for prosecution," the Court said.

Further, it observed that once the prosecution sanction was refused, the investigation could not have been carried out by an order under Section 156(3) CrPC and dismissed the plea with costs of ₹1 lakh.

The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate S.F.A. Naqvi, assisted by advocates Fatma Anjum and Manauvar Husain.

Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal was assisted by Additional Government Advocate AK Sand.

[Read Order]