The Supreme Court on Monday transferred 5 separate FIRs registered in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand against film-maker Leena Manimekalai for her ‘smoking Kaali’ poster and clubbed them with the primary case lodged against her in Delhi.
A 3-judge Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud additionally gave her liberty to method the Delhi High Court to quash the prison cases against her.
The apex court docket additional directed that its January 20 interim order defending her from coercive motion by the police within the current or future FIRs primarily based on the ‘Kaali’ movie poster would proceed till a cost sheet was filed by the investigating officer below Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
“She is a young person and has no other cases against her except this one on the poster,” Chief Justice Chandrachud addressed Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, who appeared for the federal government.
However, the court docket didn’t agree with the plea of advocate Indira Unninayyar, showing for Ms. Manimekalai, to instantly quash the FIRs. “It is only a hop, skip and jump to the Delhi High Court. You can go there with the plea… If we start entertaining that prayer, we will have countless pleas from all over seeking quashing of FIRs… We have also given you protection from any coercive action,” Chief Justice Chandrachud defined.
The first FIR against Ms. Manimekali was filed by means of the Intelligence Fusion and Strategic Operations (IFSO) unit of the Delhi Police’s particular cell. The others have been filed at Hazratganj police station in Uttar Pradesh, Station Road Ratlam police station in Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal Crime Branch in Madhya Pradesh, at Indore in Madhya Pradesh and at last at Haridwar in Uttarakhand. All the FIRs have been registered between July 4 and July 8 final yr.
The court docket selected to carry all the cases to Delhi as the primary FIR was registered within the nationwide capital.
On January 20, the apex court docket, giving interim safety to the movie maker mentioned the “institution of FIRs in multiple States would be a matter of serious prejudice to the petitioner”.