A single bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court comprising of Justice Anoop Chitkara quashed an FIR lodged against poet and former  Aam Adami Party leader Kumar Vishwas wherein allegations made against him were of hate speech and unlawful assembly after he had called Arvind Kejriwal of being a "separatist".

The statement was made by Vishwas during the Punjab Assembly election on 16th and 17th February 2022 and the present FIR came to be lodged u/s 153A, 505, 341, 116, 323, 143, 147, 120B IPC. Vishwas filed a petition under section 482 CRPC for quashing the FIR. The statement was made by him in an interview with a private media channel claiming that Arvind Kejriwal had once told him that he would become the chief minister or the prime minister of an independent state or country. It was also stated in the FIR that because of the statement of the poet, unknown persons has wrongfully restrained the complainant. 

Justice Chitkara held in his judgment that "There cannot be any democracy without freedom of choice and free speech. In a democracy, it is the pre-election times when people’s information matters the most. The petitioner being a social educator, while sharing the alleged exchange that took place with his ex-associate (Kejriwal), cannot be said to have spewed the venom. There is nothing to infer any intention to divide the classes on communal lines."

The Court also observed that "It has always been India's quest to flirt with new ways for self-realisation. Her  vivacity and dynamism can be greatly attributed to an environment of diversity and freedoms abound; the freedom to be an atheist, an antagonist, or a believer; choice to practice beliefs of karmas, re-birth...There exists an inherent liberty to individuals and the communities to propagate, follow, and spread the wisdom enshrined in the varied philosophies."

The court noting the importance of freedom and freedom of free speech and expression held that "Even in the shackles of colonialism, her mind remained free and eager for deliverance. With the liberation of her soul, the swatantrata was not just from British rule but from the slavery of thoughts, unchaining of oneself from the subjugation of alien laws, restoring the absolute freedom to think, undoing the status quo, and spreading the information."

While quashing the FIR the Court observed that "Thus, it would not be permissible to expand the scope of the complaint to connect the alleged subsequent incident by fishing the evidence and on the assumptions and suspicions of the complainant. This is a fit case for this court to prevent the abuse of the process of law because the allegations made in the complaint and the probe do not contain any material which even remotely links the incidents with the interviews of the petitioner." 

Case Details:-

CRM-M-17450/2022

Kumar Vishwas ......Petitioner

 v.

State of Punjab and another ......Respondents