Allahabad HC Refuses To Suppress FIR In Opposition To Urdu Poet Munnawar Rana For Evaluating Valmiki To Taliban

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Case name is: Munnawar Rana Vs State of U.P. under the guidance of Justice Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha and Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav.
• The learned attorney argued that some of the applicant's allegations about certain personal interactions with family and friends were distorted by some notorious social media scam.
• He submitted that the applicant did not make any offensive or provocative statements as claimed by in F.I.R.
• Shri Singh argued that there was no convincing and reliable evidence linking the applicant to the crime in question.

THE BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

• The Allahabad High Court refused the declination to registering of an FIR against Urdu poet Munawwar Rana, who allegedly compared Valmiki, who wrote the Ramayana, to the Taliban.
• The FIR was registered under section 153A which is basically incitement to hostility between different groups based on religion, race, place of birth, etc.
• The FIR was registered against Munawvar Rana in Hazratganj Kotwali in Lucknow in accordance with the SC / ST Act in a statement. Complaint was also filed by the All India Hindu Mahasabha and the Samajik Sarokar Foundation.
• The applicant's lawyer, senior lawyer I.B. Singh, claimed that the applicant was a senior citizen and Urdu poet who was internationally renowned and respected.
• Ambedkar Mahasabha also asked to file a lawsuit against Munawvar Rana for his inappropriate comments

WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE CASE

• Speaking on TV, Munavvar Rana had stated that Valmiki became a God after writing the Ramayana, while being a thief earlier. Likewise, he commented on Taliban being terrorists now.
• In announcing its decision, the panel of judges Ramesh Sinha and Saroj Yadav detailed that the feelings of the majority of the population were hurt by unnecessarily comparing the petitioner Lord Valmiki with the Taliban in a disrespectful manner and without any form.
• It was alleged that some of Rana's statements in some personal conversations with family and friends were distorted by some notorious social media trolls, as well as some irresponsible media outlets, and a deliberate attempt was made to infuse them as a natural crime upon the community.
• It was further claimed that Rana did not even mention Lord Valmiki's name and thus questioned his comparison of Lord Valmiki to the Taliban and questioned the claims of his adherents or any other religion.

IN CONTINUATION

• On the other hand, an additional adviser to the Government argued that the applicant had made derogatory statements in order to inflame feelings of hatred, hatred or malice towards a particular religion.
• In addition, it was argued that the tone and behaviour of such a statement engenders hatred, prejudice, enmity and malice against religion.
• Having examined the case file, the Court concluded that the merits of Rana's statements indicate that negligence and other offences set forth in Sections 153A, 295A, 505 (1) (b) IPC, were fully signed.
• Therefore, the grounds for cancelling the first information message were rejected.