Charge of sedition justified against Kangana Ranaut: Complainant to Bombay HC
The Bombay high court (HC), while hearing the petition filed by actor Kangana Ranaut seeking quashing of the first information report (FIR) against her by Bandra police on charges of sedition, was informed by the complainant in the case that the actor’s tweets had not only intended to cause hatred between communities on religious lines but had also tried to create animosity in the minds of her followers against the state government
The Bombay high court (HC), while hearing the petition filed by actor Kangana Ranaut seeking quashing of the first information report (FIR) against her by Bandra police on charges of sedition, was informed by the complainant in the case that the actor’s tweets had not only intended to cause hatred between communities on religious lines but had also tried to create animosity in the minds of her followers against the state government.
The affidavit further stressed on section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and said that the actor had continued using the social media platform even after she had given an undertaking to the court on November 24, 2020, that she would desist, and hence her petition should not be entertained.
The division bench of justice SS Shinde and justice Manish Pitale, while hearing the petition of Ranaut and her sister Rangoli Chandel seeking quashing of the FIR, was informed by advocate Rizwan Siddiquee that as per the court’s directions, the actor had filed a reply to the affidavit filed by the complainant in the FIR, and was willing to argue the quashing of the FIR case.
However, the court sought to know the content of the affidavit filed by the complainant Munawwarli Sayyed and hence posted the matter for hearing on February 5.
Sayyed’s affidavit filed by advocate Rizwan Merchant opposed the petition, stating that the actor had been tweeting intending to “promote enmity and hatred inter se between different groups, caste, community, etc, but also intended to bring in the government of Maharashtra into feelings of hatred, contempt, enmity and disloyalty with a possibility and likelihood of breach of peace and creating an environment prejudicial to maintenance of law and order, public order and public tranquillity.”
The affidavit further states: “[The petition by the actor] is premature to claim that no offence is made out against them in the FIR, and their refusal to attend the office of the investigating officer during the interrogation is a deliberate and willful attempt by the applicants to stifle and scuttle the investigation at a nascent stage.”
While addressing the bench, Merchant stated that he would be arguing mainly on sedition charges against the actor and her sister, and hence required some time to argue the same.
After hearing the submissions, the court said that it would allow both sides to argue on February 15, and complete hearing in the petition the same day.