Brinda Karat, KM Tiwari move Delhi HC against order refusing to register hate speech FIR against Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma

Communist Party of India (Marxist) leaders Brinda Karat and KM Tiwari have moved the Delhi High Court challenging the trial court order which refused to direct registration of FIRs against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma for hate speech (Brinda Karat v. State)..The matter was listed for hearing before a Single Judge Bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna. .In February this year, Karat and Tiwari had filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate seeking a direction to the Parliament Street Police Station to register an FIR against Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Sahib Singh Verma for the commission of offences under Sections 153A/153B/295A/298/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860..They pointed out that during a rally in Rithala in Delhi, Thakur raised chants of “Desh ke gaddaro ko, goli maaro saalon ko” (Shoot the traitors) with reference to those taking part in peaceful protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019..It was further stated that Verma gave an interview to ANI on Janaury 28, wherein he was seen making false, provocative and communal statements against the Shaheen Bagh protestors..The ACMM, however, dismissed the application for lack of previous sanction from the competent authority i.e. the Central government..[Breaking] Delhi Court dismisses plea seeking FIR against Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma for hate speech.In their plea before the High Court, Karat and Tiwari have contended that as per Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the issue of sanction arises only at the stage of taking cognizance and not at the stage of registration of FIR. .Appearing for Karat and Tiwari, Advocate Siddharth Agarwal argued that the ACMM wrongly dismissed the matter at the outset..He contended that the ACMM's reliance on Anil Kumar & ors v. MK Aiyappa and Anr was misplaced as the case specifically referred only to requirement of prior sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. ."Section 196(3) CrPC has no application at the stage of Section 156(3) CrPC", Agarwal argued. .He also argued at length on the maintainability of the present plea under Section 482 CrPC. .The Court adjourned the matter till November 2 with a direction to the parties, including the Delhi Police, to submit relevant judgments in their favour. .The petition was filed through Advocates Tara Narula, Adit Pujari and Aprajita Sinha.