The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court in Abdul Bari Naik v. State of J&K and others refused to quash an FIR registered against an Assistant Professor working in a Government college who was accused of intending to provoke common people to use force or violence against the institutions like the army, the police and the civil administration.
The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner professor has been charged under Sections 153, 353 and 13 ULA(P) Act in an FIR registered with Police Station, Kulgam. He has challenged the impugned FIR on the ground that the contents of the same are false and that no offence is made out against him even if the same are accepted at their face value, it would at best amount to a violation of Civil Service Rules on the part of the petitioner and in no case, it would amount to disclosure of a criminal offence against the petitioner.
However, the petition has been resisted by the Respondents. In a reply to this petition, the Respondents have stated that the activities of the petitioner have the effect of motivating
the students of the college to disrupt peace and tranquillity in the area as he is provoking them to indulge in violence against the State Administration. It has been submitted that the petitioner, in order to gain cheap popularity within the area, is using illegal means to prevent the district administration from discharging their lawful activities, and such activities attract the provisions contained in Sections 153 and 353 of RPC and Section 13 of ULA(P) Act.
A perusal of the case diary shows that during the investigation the petitioner was found to be sympathetic towards the people who are involved in unlawful and terrorist activities and he provoked common people against the establishment of army camps. Certain video clips have been seized by the investigation agency from which it appears that the petitioner is conveying to the audience that Kashmiri students are being lynched and brutally tortured in other parts of the country. In one of the video clips, the petitioner is seen conveying to his audience that the children of Kashmir are being oppressed by the security forces and the army. In another video clip, the petitioner is seen pleading for the release of a person who was in custody for indulging in stone pelting and terrorist activities.
Therefore, the Court rejected the petition and observed that “The material collected by the investigating agency during the investigation of the case clearly suggests that the petitioner is provoking or at least intending to provoke his audience to use force or violence against the institutions like the army, the police and the civil administration. The video clips also, prima facie, show that the petitioner is trying to promote enmity between the people living in Kashmir and those living in other parts of the country. Thus, it cannot be stated that the material on record does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence against the petitioner…..”