“Interestingly, the person, who was allegedly intentionally insulted by the petitioner, thereby being provoked to breach the public peace or commit any other offence, never came forward to lodge a complaint…” These words from Justice Sandeep Sharma of the Himachal Pradesh High Court highlight the court’s recent decision to quash a First Information Report (FIR) against Thakar Singh Bharmouri.

The FIR was filed following an email complaint by a member of the Bharatiya Janta Party, concerning remarks made by Bharmouri during an election rally on October 3, 2021. The complaint alleged that Bharmouri had made derogatory comments about Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Justice Sharma emphasized that the accusations lacked specificity, stating, “No material worth credence has been adduced on record to suggest that petitioner intentionally, with a view to cause public disruption, hurled abuses and made uncalled for remarks against the Hon’ble Prime Minister.” This ruling underscores the court’s stance on the necessity of concrete evidence in such cases.

The court further noted that the essential elements required to invoke Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code were absent. Justice Sharma remarked, “…there is no allegation that while using absurd language and hurling abuses at the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, petitioner ever attempted to promote enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens of India on the grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language…”

In its ruling, the court also highlighted the importance of protecting the judicial process from misuse, stating, “The High Court’s inherent power under Section 528 must be exercised to prevent the judicial process from being used as a weapon of harassment in cases where a conviction is highly unlikely.”

As a result of the court’s decision, Bharmouri has been formally acquitted of the charges against him. This ruling may set a precedent for similar cases in the future, emphasizing the need for clear and specific allegations in political contexts.

The implications of this ruling extend beyond Bharmouri, potentially affecting how political speech is treated in legal contexts in India. The court’s insistence on evidence and specificity may deter frivolous complaints in the future.

Details remain unconfirmed regarding any potential appeals or further actions by the parties involved following this ruling.

The post Sandeep sharma: Justice Quashes FIR Against Thakar Singh Bharmouri appeared first on newscri.

The court recently directed the state government to grant approval for the prosecution of Sindhuri in connection with a case involving the procurement of eco-friendly bags. The complaint, filed by lawyer and social activist NR Ravinchandre Gowda, alleges that the state government incurred a loss of Rs 7.5 crore due to the purchase of these bags at an inflated price of Rs 52 each, while the market price was only Rs 13.

At the time of the alleged misconduct, Rohini Sindhuri served as the deputy commissioner of Mysuru and was also the managing director of the Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation. The case revolves around the purchase of over 14 lakh eco-friendly cloth bags in 2021, which has now come under scrutiny for potential corruption.

Initially, the state government declined to grant permission for prosecution under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which aims to protect public servants from frivolous complaints. However, the court emphasized that serious allegations of corruption must be thoroughly investigated and cannot be dismissed without inquiry.

Justice M Nagaprasanna further clarified, “Departmental proceedings and criminal prosecution operate in distinct spheres, governed by distinct standards of proof and objectives.” This statement underscores the court’s position that the investigation into Sindhuri’s actions should proceed independently of any internal departmental reviews.

In its ruling, the court criticized the government for failing to adequately review the allegations and reiterated the necessity for a proper investigation. The court ordered the state government to provide permission under the Prevention of Corruption Act for the Lokayukta police to file a First Information Report (FIR) against Sindhuri.

Rohini Sindhuri, a senior IAS officer from the 2009 batch of the Karnataka cadre, has been involved in a highly publicized feud with IPS officer D. Roopa earlier in 2023, which has drawn significant media attention. The current allegations add another layer of complexity to her career.

As the situation develops, the focus will remain on how the state government responds to the court’s directive and whether further legal actions will be taken against Sindhuri. Details remain unconfirmed regarding the next steps in the prosecution process.

The post Rohini Sindhuri Faces Corruption Allegations in Karnataka appeared first on newscri.

The Telangana High Court has granted the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) three weeks to file its counter affidavits in response to two public interest litigations (PILs) challenging the allotment of 11 acres of government land at Kokapet. The land was designated for establishing a centre for excellence, training, and personality development.

The petitions, filed by the Forum for Good Governance and advocate A Venkatarami Reddy, allege that the allotment was made for political purposes rather than for public benefit. In a related development, the state government has already submitted its counter affidavit regarding the matter.

During the proceedings, the BRS counsel requested an extension of four weeks to prepare the party’s counter. The court responded by emphasizing that “two wrongs do not make a right,” highlighting the importance of addressing the allegations seriously.

In a separate political context, TPCC President Mahesh Kumar Goud has urged Ministers, MLAs, and MLCs to effectively counter opposition questions in the Assembly. Goud has directed party members to address false propaganda concerning the Six Guarantees scheme, which has been a significant point of contention.

Goud also advised legislators to gather comprehensive information related to every government department to ensure they are well-prepared to defend the government’s mandate. He stated that the responsibility of defending the government’s decisions rests on every elected representative present in the House.

As the situation unfolds, observers are keen to see how the BRS will respond to the court’s directive and whether the allegations regarding the land allotment will be substantiated or dismissed. Details remain unconfirmed regarding the implications of the court’s ruling on the political landscape in Telangana.

The post Counter: Telangana High Court Grants BRS Time to File Affidavits appeared first on newscri.