Bombay HC quashes ‘spying’ FIR against man, asks Home dept, police to ‘curb misuse of OSA’
'Law cannot be misused to harass or torment citizens'
The HC also said that authorities concerned can consider whether a senior high-ranking officer should be informed when an FIR under the OSA is lodged "in matters concerning police station to curb misuse of the Act”.
The Bombay High Court (HC), while quashing an FIR against a Solapur man charged with spying under the Official Secrets Act (OSA), recently observed that “law cannot be misused to harass or torment citizens”. It also asked the state Home department and Maharashtra police to take steps to curb the misuse of OSA.
Expressing “shock”, the HC said it was “appalled” to note that an FIR under Section 3 (spying) of the OSA was lodged against the petitioner for clicking a photograph of a police station in Akluj in Solapur district from the outside.
The HC directed the state government to pay Rs 25,000 to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of uploading of the order and said that the same be recovered from the salary of the person/s responsible for invoking Section 3 of the OSA against the petitioner.
Section 3 of the OSA prescribes penalty for spying for acts prejudicial to the safety or interests of the state and acts affecting the sovereignty and integrity of India.
“We are shocked and appalled, how the concerned police officer could have even lodged an offence… We cannot comprehend how an FIR could have even been registered on the basis of the said photograph, that too, for a serious offence under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act,” a division bench of Justice Revati Mohite-Dere and Justice Prithviraj K Chavan observed. The bench was hearing a petition by one Rohan Tukaram Kale, seeking to quash the FIR registered against him at Akluj police station in Solapur district last year.
Head constable Somnath Haribhau Koli, the complainant, said that on July 27 last year Kale, who was called to the police station in connection with another FIR, was seen taking photographs of the police station from outside, which led to lodging of the FIR.
However, advocates Prasad Avhad and Chetan Nagare Kale, arguing for Rohan Tukaram Kale, said he clicked the photograph only to show that police personnel and the persons, with whom he had a family dispute related to land, were talking to each other in a friendly manner.
The bench “prima facie” found the FIR was filed with ‘malafide” intention. The HC also noted that the definition of ‘prohibited place’ as per Section 2(8) of the said Act is an exhaustive definition, which does not specifically include ‘police station’ as one of the places or establishments.”
“Invocation of Section 3 of the Act can have drastic consequences on the person against whom it is invoked. It could impact one’s reputation, job, career and so on. It cannot be lightly invoked, to jeopardise someone’s life and career. Law cannot be misused / abused and must not be used as a tool for harassing or tormenting persons. It is the duty of the police to protect people and act in accordance with law,” Justice Mohite-Dere observed.
It held that the FIR was “clearly an abuse of the process of law and if not quashed, would lead to serious miscarriage of justice, which cannot be countenanced”.
The court also raised “serious concern” over regular cases/FIRs being registered by police invoking Section 3 of the OSA without ‘application of mind” for acts done in the police station, video-graphing of discussions in the police station, taking photographs within the police station, etc, “more particularly, when a ‘police station’ is not a prohibited place.”
The bench directed its registry to send the copy of the order to the state Home department, Maharashtra DGP and Mumbai police commissioner to take appropriate steps to ensure that the OSA is not misused.
The HC also said that authorities concerned can consider whether a senior high-ranking officer should be informed when an FIR under the OSA is lodged “in matters concerning police station to curb misuse of the Act”.
Share
