Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a petition filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) challenging the order of dismissal of petitioner’s plea seeking police involvement to gather evidence effectively in a matter related to making derogatory remarks and gestures towards the judiciary by Comedian Kapil Sharma in his show, a single-judge bench comprising of Anand Pathak, held that the petitioner’s reliance on a television program as the primary source of evidence did not warrant police intervention. The Court emphasised the petitioner’s responsibility to substantiate the complaint independently and dismissed the petition accordingly.
In the instant matter, the petitioner/complainant filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC challenging the order dated 06-12-2023, passed by the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, District Shivpuri, which rejected the criminal revision preferred against the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shivpuri, dated 19-04-2023. The petitioner’s complaint alleged that during a television show titled “The Kapil Sharma Show,” respondent 3, Kapil Sharma, depicted a court scene while holding a liquor bottle and making derogatory remarks, purportedly undermining the dignity of the courts. The petitioner had filed a private complaint and an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC for police investigation, which was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shivpuri. The petitioner’s subsequent criminal revision was also dismissed by the revisional court, stating that the petitioner should gather evidence from the television program itself. The petitioner contended that both lower courts erred in dismissing the petitioner’s plea for police investigation. The Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner could present evidence himself as per Section 200 of the CrPC.
Upon hearing the arguments and examining the documents, the Court observed that the petitioner’s grievance primarily stemmed from the portrayal of courts in the television show. The Court noted that the petitioner had already obtained recordings of the program and had the necessary electronic equipment. The Court opined that the police had little role to play in gathering evidence for such allegations and held that the refusal by the Judicial Magistrate to entertain the application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC did not constitute any “illegality, perversity or impropriety”. The Court held that the petitioner, as the complainant, had to provide evidence to justify the private complaint and could not rely on the police to do so.
“Petitioner as complainant has to stand on his own legs and if he is aggrieved then he has to collect necessary evidence and has to depose accordingly to justify his stand for filing private complaint. Shoulder of police cannot be used to gain mileage if the aim is of that nature.”
In light of these considerations, the Court dismissed the petition, finding no grounds for interference.
[Suresh Dhakad, MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6703 of 2024, order dated 19-03-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri Akshat Kumar Jain, Counsel for the Petitioner
Shri Rajiv Upadhyay, Public Prosecutor, Counsel for the Respondents
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
