Punjab and Haryana HC declines to quash FIR lodged for ‘uploading videos of Army assets’

In August 2018, the Army had in its complaint said that the videos contain information “regarding layout and location of strategic assets” of the cantonment.

The court in its judgment said that disputed questions of facts can be appropriately decided by the trial court in light of the evidence provided by the parties. (File)

THE PUNJAB and Haryana High Court has declined to quash an FIR registered against a 23-year-old youth under the Official Secrets Act in 2018 for allegedly uploading two videos showing a lake, residential houses of Army officers and the canteen of Jalandhar Cantonment, an Army establishment, on YouTube. However, the court asked the trial court to make a “sincere endeavour” to conclude the trial within six months as the accused is a student.

“The FIR has been filed by…a responsible officer of Indian Army. He claims that security of a defence establishment has been compromised due to action of the petitioner whereas the petitioner claims otherwise…it is the claim of the Army authorities that filming of the area is specifically prohibited and sign boards in this regard have been installed at various places,” a single bench said in an order.

In August 2018, the Army had in its complaint said that the videos contain information “regarding layout and location of strategic assets” of the cantonment. The counsel representing the accused argued that he had “bonafidely” recorded certain videos, but none of the videos gives any information about strategic assets. The court was also told that the Jalandhar Cantonment area is open to public and thus the FIR registered is “an abuse of the process of law”.

Story continues below this ad

However, the investigating agency told the court that the lake shown in the video is used for training officers and is not accessible to the public. The court was also told that the location of residential houses of senior officers has been disclosed and filmed and even the location of the canteen has also been disclosed.

The court in its judgment said that disputed questions of facts can be appropriately decided by the trial court in light of the evidence provided by the parties. “This is not a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (saving of inherent powers of High Court) at the initial stage,” said the order.

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram

Tags:
chandigarh