Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea Against Closure Report In Alleged Hate Speech Case Against Yogi Adityanath

The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea with rupees one lakh cost that was filed in protest of the closure report in the 2007 alleged "hate-speech" case against then parliamentarian and present Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh Yogi Adityanath.

The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh passed the order in the plea filed by one Parvez Parwaz and another while noting that there was a checkered history of litigation and the petitioner himself was facing several criminal cases. "His resources to fight/contest the litigation should be a matter of investigation," the judge opined. 

Justice Singh also found "some force" in the argument put forth by Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal who submitted that the petitioner was an impostor who had been set up by the forces, which are opposing the present UP Chief Minister, and the forces, which do not want the progress of Uttar Pradesh and India.

"It is for the State to investigate the said aspect, however, this Court does not want to say anything further or give any direction in this regard," however, the judge said. 

The present plea was filed under Section 482 CrPC impugning the order of the trial court dated October 11, 2022, whereby the trial court had rejected the petitioners' protest petition by holding that the sanction for prosecuting Yogi Adityanath had already been refused under Section 196 CrPC and the matter had reached the Top Court which had also dismissed the appeal.

In the present matter, the allegations against Yogi Adityanath were that in 2007, he, then a BJP parliamentarian from Gorakhpur delivered a speech that led to violence in parts of Gorakhpur.

On court's order, the police registered a case in 2008 and the same was investigated by the CID of the UP police in 2008. The CID completed the investigation in 2015 and sought sanction for prosecution. The state government however refused to grant a sanction to prosecute, on the ground that the draft investigation report filed by the police’s CB-CID showed there was insufficient evidence to initiate a trial against Adityanath. The government observed that video evidence submitted by the complainant against Adityanath and four others, which was sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory in October 2014 was tampered with.

The decision of UP government not granting sanction was challenged before Allahabad High Court by Parvez Parwaz. The petition, also sought for a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the event. Asad Hyat, who claimed to be a witness in the case, was also one of the petitioners. In the High Court, the advocate general had raised doubts on the petition and had argued that the investigation was over. 

Thereafter, in February 2018, the Allahabad High Court rejected the plea seeking action against Yogi Adityanath and eight accused in the case. Following the court's verdict, Parvez Parwaz approached the Supreme Court. Rejecting the plea, the High Court had stated that they did not find any procedural error in the conduct of the investigation.

Later in 2018, Supreme Court issued a notice to the Uttar Pradesh government against the order of the Allahabad High Court. The petitioner had challenged the judgment on the ground as to whether the State can pass an order under Section 196 Cr.P.C. in respect of a proposed accused in a criminal case who in the meantime gets elected as the Chief Minister and is the Executive Head as per the scheme provided under Article 163. 

Counsel for the petitioner had argued that the investigation agency had clearly indicated that the crime branch had found offences under Section 143, 153, 153A, 295A and 505 of IPC. It was argued that the statements made by Yogi Adityanath were in the public domain and the Chief Minister had himself admitted during a televised interview that he delivered the alleged speech, which amounts to extra-judicial confession. 

However, the Top Court upheld the non-grant of sanction. The Top Court noted that the investigation was over and closure report dated May 6, 2017, had been filed in the court by the investigating agency and against the final/closure report, a protest petition was filed which was pending for consideration before the trial Court.

The trial court, on October 11, 2022, rejected the protest petition against the final/closure report against which the petitioners moved the high court through the present petition. 

The counsel for the petitioners argued that the question of legality of order, refusing sanction for prosecution, was left open by the Supreme Court and, therefore, it could not be said that the issue had attained finality.

While deciding the protest petition filed by the petitioner against the closure/final report the trial Court could/ought to have decided the issue of legality of the order, refusing prosecution sanction, Senior Advocate S.F.A. Naqvi assisted by advocates Fatma Anjum and Manauvar Husain argued. 

On the other hand, Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal assisted by Additional Government Advocate A.K. Sand on behalf of the State contended that once the Supreme Court has not entertained the plea of validity of order, refusing prosecution sanction, the trial Court has rightly refused to go into the said issue.

It does not lie in mouth of the petitioner to raise the question of improper investigation inasmuch as out of three issues, two issues were not pressed by the petitioner before the Supreme Court, the AAG argued. 

He further submitted that the petitioner had been indulging in vexatious prosecution of CM Adityanath, who has changed the face of the State since he assumed the charge of the State in the year 2017.

"....some forces are working against the popular Chief Minister to derail the progress of the State," he asserted. 

The single judge bench held that the issue for consideration before it was only as to whether it could have been opened to the trial Court to decide the issue of validity of the order, refusing prosecution sanction of the accused when the Supreme Court had dismissed the criminal appeal and left the question of sanction to be answered in an appropriate case.

The bench emphasised that the only question which was raised by the counsel for the petitioner before the Supreme Court was regarding the validity of order, refusing sanction for prosecution under Section 196 CrPC.

"The Supreme Court, however, taking note of the facts & circumstances, did not answer the issue and dismissed the appeal and, thus, the judgment of the Division Bench had attained finality," the bench noted. 

Therefore, the bench held that the said issue could not have been decided by the trial Court again. 

"I find that the trial Court has rightly refused to go into the said question once it got decided by the Supreme Court," the single judge bench said. 

Case Title: Parvez Parwaz And Another v. State of U.P. and Another