FIR against Priya Prakash Varrier: Who is to blame for legally 'targeting' celebs?
The Supreme Court on February 21 stayed all criminal proceedings against teen actress Priya Prakash Varrier and director Omar Lulu, who were booked for allegedly hurting religious sentiments of Muslims in a song from their upcoming Malayalam film, Oru Adaar Love.
Priya, who recently became an internet sensation for her wink in a song (Manikya Malaraya Poovi) from the film, had moved the top court seeking quashing of an FIR lodged against her and the director.
Although there is nothing new or unexpected considering the long line of such adventurous attempts to prosecute such entities, it's a clear abuse of the process of law.
The fault, however, do not lie with the complainants who may have their "reasons" to file such complaints. The duty is cast upon the magistrates/police who "entertain" such complaints and order notices to the "accused" persons as if a cognisable offence was made out. There is no dearth of instances wherein celebrities were summoned to court for similar "offences" committed by them. They were compelled to move the Supreme Court even though in normal circumstances they would be required to "defend themselves" before the magistrates concerned.
Time has come for the Supreme Court to remind and reiterate the legal position that magistrates cannot function as mere post offices to "take on file (TOF - as they call it in legal language)" and pull them up rather than merely reversing the orders.
Justice TS Arunachalam, a former chief justice of the Madras High Court, was truly shocked to find TOF seals affixed on such complaints and came down heavily on such a practice. But it still continues.
Examples are aplenty. Cricketer MS Dhoni too had to move the Supreme Court against a Karnataka High Court order in a case filed against him for allegedly “denigrating” a Hindu god by posing as lord Vishnu on a magazine cover. In another example, an advocate, Pankaj Dixit, earlier filed a criminal case against actor Aamir Khan in a Kanpur court and the magistrate had ordered registration of complaint and fixed a date for hearing. The complainant in his petition had stated that he had read Khan's comments on "rising intolerance in the country". The advocate claimed that the comments were "seditious".
In 2004, the Supreme Court had quashed bailable arrest warrants issued by an Ahmedabad magistrate against the then president APJ Abdul Kalam, the then CJI VN Khare, and two others holding that the complaint was "ex-facie fraud". A three-member bench of justices N Santosh Hegde, SB Sinha and SH Kapadia expressed shock and anguish at the manner in which a magistrate issued the warrants without even examining the complainant.
One can multiply such flights of fancy by the dozens. But who is to blame for such orders? Surely, not the complainants. As I said, they may have their "reasons" for pursuing the matter. It is the magistrate who is called upon to hear them, who has to take a "legal call"? Regretfully, it seems that the magistrates fail to "apply their minds" at this stage and mechanically order notice to the "accused".
In October last year, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court cautioned trial court and magistrates not to pass "mechanical orders to set criminal law into motion". It also asked them "not to be silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused".
“Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto.
He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused,” Justice Vinay Deshpande had noted while quashing a criminal case initiated against M/s Volvo India Limited by the Department of Legal Meteorology.
Back in 1998, the apex court had observed that "it was not a comforting thought for the accused to be dragged to a far off jurisdiction to seek bail and/or discharge or undergo trial, when prima face the proceedings were sheer abuse of process of law" (Pepsi Foods Ltd versus Special Judicial Magistrate).
But as I said, there are innumerable examples. There is also no point in saying that the complainants were irrationally exuberant. There are busybodies who indulge in such acts for various reasons, including publicity. That is the beauty of democracy. But the magistrate being the repository of power and jurisdiction is required to "apply his/her mind" and refrain from entertaining such complaints.
The top court of the land has laid down the law and its contours. Simple adherence to it may save celebs like Priya Varrier of avoidable trauma.