Making Remarks About A Chief Minister Or Pointing Out The Government’s Failure To Fulfil Poll Promises Does Not Amount To Obscenity Or Causing Enmity: Madras High Court

CASE NAME:

C.Ve Shanmugam vs. State
CASE DATE:

13th August, 2024

PARTIES INVOLVED:-
●    Petitioner: C.Ve Shanmugam

●    Respondents:
i.    State 
ii.    Shanmugha Sundaram
iii.    Karthikeyan

JUDGE:

Justice G Jayachndran

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:-

A.    Indian Penal Code:-

1. Section 143:- 
   Punishes the act of assembling with five or more persons with a common object to commit an illegal act.
2. Section 341:
   Defines wrongful restraint and provides for punishment for preventing someone from proceeding in any direction in which they have a right to proceed.
3. Section 269:- 
   Addresses acts that are negligent and likely to spread an infectious disease.
4. Section 270:- 
   Deals with acts done with the intention to spread an infectious disease.
5. Section 290:- 
   Concerns acts that cause public nuisance and provides punishment.
6. Section 294(b):-
   Punishes obscene acts or songs in public.
7. Section 504:- 
   Addresses intentional insults meant to provoke a breach of peace.
8. Section 153A:- 
   Concerns acts promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc.
9. Section 505(1)(b):- 
   Deals with statements that promote or create enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups.

SUBJECT:-

The petitioner, Mr. CVe. Shanmugam, a member of AIADMK, faced two FIRs for leading a protest in February 2022. The petitioner contested the second FIR was based on the same facts as the first, with no new evidence to warrant a separate investigation. The court found that the second FIR, filed eight months later, was unjustified as it involved the same incident. The first FIR was quashed as it lacked sufficient grounds to constitute a crime.

OVERVIEW:-

• A protest was organized by AIADMK, near Villupuram Old Bus Stand to condemn the arrest of Mr. D. Jayakumar.
• The gathering involved around 1500 men and 200 women and was held without police permission, causing traffic disruptions and potential COVID-19 protocol violations.
• The first complaint was lodged shortly after the incident by Karthikeyan, the Village Administrative Officer, against Mr. Shanmugam and others for causing public nuisance and violating COVID-19 protocols. It included charges under Sections 143, 341, 269, 270 and 290 IPC.
• A second complaint was filed later by Mr. Shanmugha Sundaram, a DMK party member, alleging that Mr. Shanmugam made a provocative and obscene speech during the protest, with charges under Sections 153A, 294(b), 504 and 505(1)(b) IPC.
• Mr. Shanmugam challenged the legality of the second FIR, arguing that it was politically motivated and that multiple FIRs for the same incident are not permissible under law.

ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE COURT:-

1. Whether the registration of multiple FIRs arising from the same set of facts and circumstances is permissible under the law?
2. Whether the delay in filing the second FIR and the involvement of political consultations indicate that the FIR was motivated by political bias?

CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:-

• The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R. John Sathyan, contended that the registration of two FIRs arising from the same set of facts is impermissible under law unless they are filed as counter-complaints.
• The petitioner asserted that the second FIR was registered with improper motives, specifically to suppress political dissent. The fact that the complainant is affiliated with the ruling party suggests a potential misuse of police authority for political purposes.
• It was argued that the second FIR lacks substantive evidence to substantiate the claims made. The purported objectionable speech is not supported by any authenticated record or manuscript, rendering the second FIR unfounded.
• They contended that neither FIR meets the legal requirements for the offenses alleged. 

CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:-

• The learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. KMD Muhilan, contended that the filing of multiple FIRs for the same incident is legally permissible if the new FIR reveals distinct and separate offenses that were not covered in the initial FIR.
• The respondent asserted that the second FIR was filed in good faith based on new and specific evidence that emerged after the initial FIR. They claim that the action taken was within the bounds of lawful authority and not influenced by political motives.
• They argued that the evidence supporting the second FIR is adequate and justifiable and that it meets the legal standards required for the investigation of the alleged offenses
• The respondent maintains that all procedural requirements for filing the second FIR have been duly followed. They contend that there have been no irregularities in the process that would undermine the legality of the FIR.

OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE COURT:-

• he Court found that the complaints related to the same incident but focused on different aspects. Despite this, the law does not permit multiple FIRs for the same transaction.
• The Court noted procedural irregularities, such as the VAO’s complaint not being considered in the subsequent FIR’s investigation.
• The final report based on the second FIR was deemed problematic due to the lack of evidence and procedural irregularities.
• The court stated that the first FIR did not meet the necessary legal criteria.
• The court noted the possible political motivations behind the FIRs, which impacted the integrity of the legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT:-

The court held that there cannot be multiple FIRs for the same incident, especially when the second FIR does not bring new facts but rather new allegations related to the same event. The legal framework and precedents emphasize the need for a single FIR and comprehensive investigation based on the first report.
Further, it stated that the investigation should focus on the first FIR. Any subsequent complaints related to the same incident should be considered part of the investigation of the first FIR unless they involve different or additional elements not covered in the initial complaint.

CONCLUSION:-

The court ruled that the second FIR was impermissible as it was filed for the same incident as the first FIR. It quashed the first FIR due to insufficient evidence for the alleged offences. It was concluded that the same transaction should not have multiple FIRs, particularly when the second FIR does not provide new or rival evidence. 
This decision not only rectifies the immediate issue at hand but also establishes a precedent for upholding procedural integrity and preventing the misuse of legal processes, thereby reinforcing the rule of law and the judicial system’s credibility.