Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL. MISC. (MAIN) OF 2018 IN THE MATTER OF: - SWATI CHATURVEDI ….PETITIONERS VERSUS TAJINDER PAL SINGH BAGGA …RESPONDENTS PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 SEEKING QUASHING OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINT CASE NO. 44490 OF 2017 FILED UNDER SECTION 200 OF CR.P.C. FOR INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 499, 500 AND 501 OF IPC AS WELL AS SUMMONING ORDER DATED 17.05.2018 ISSUED BY LD. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-6, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI IN THE AFOREMENTIONED COMPLAINT CASE TITLE AS TAJINDER PAL SINGH BAGGA VS. SWATI CHATURVEDI The Petitioners above-named most respectfully submit as under: - 1. That the present petition is being filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking quashing of the complaint (being Complaint Case No. 44490 of 2017) filed by the Respondent herein under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for initiating the proceedings under Section 499, 500 and 501 of IPC against the Petitioner herein. This petition also seeks quashing of the summoning order dated 17.05.2018 passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate-6, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 44490 of 2017 titled as “Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga vs. Swati Chaturvedi”. The petitioner 2. The petitioner is a journalist of high repute, standing and eminence. She has worked with various newspapers and channels like The Statesman, The Indian Express, Hindustan Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) Times, The Tribune, NDTV.com, TheWire.in etc. She is the author of several books. Her investigative stories have exposed the wrong acts of various governments and political parties over the last 20 years. She has not faced any defamation or other charges throughout her career as an investigative journalist. 3. Petitioner‟s investigative book „I am a troll: Inside the secret world of the BJP‟s digital army‟ reveals the systemic abuse and attack by BJP affiliated persons on the Internet. The respondent has been named as an example in the book as a BJP‟s Internet warrior who graduated from online abuse to actual violence. Her book has been widely acclaimed and praised internationally and nationally. She has also been writing investigative stories and editorial comments exposing the wrongdoings of the current government and the party in power. 4. Petitioner is the accused in the complaint dated 18.03.2017 filed by the respondent herein under Section 200 CrPC alleging that he has been defamed by the petitioner. Petitioner has been summoned by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate on the basis of the said complaint vide order dated 17.05.2018. The respondent 5. The respondent is an accused in the brutal attack on lawyer Mr. Prashant Bhushan, for which he had himself claimed responsibility. He had been arrested and charge-sheeted by the Delhi Police, and is currently out on bail. 6. The respondent in 2010 had attacked the car of one Kashmiri leader in Delhi, in 2011 he had disrupted Ms. Arundhati Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) Roy‟s book launch in Delhi and in 2012 he had heckled a Kashmiri Hurriyat leader in Delhi. Respondent has been extremely active on micro-blogging website Twitter and other social media targeting critics of the BJP. Respondent has been appointed BJP spokesperson for Delhi unit. 7. The respondent had been accused of sexual harassment by Dr. Jwala Gurunath in a police complaint. She alleged that the respondent had made an indecent proposal by calling her 25 times to stay over her place. A FIR was registered by the Karnataka police. However, no offence relating to sexual harassment was invoked by the police in the FIR with the result that Ld. Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court quashed the FIR. Brief Facts 8. The respondent along with two others on 12.10.2011 had trespassed and assaulted advocate Prashant Bhushan in his Supreme Court chamber. After the attack, Bhushan was taken to Ram Manohar Lohia hospital where doctors said that he had received minor injuries on his head and leg. Hours before the assault the respondent had tweeted. "God give us power to complete our mission." After the assault, the respondent claimed credit for the assault exulting, “He try to break my nation, I try to break his head. Hisab chukta. Congrats to all. Operation Prashant Bhushan successful." In another tweet he posted: "We hit Prashant Bhushan hard in his chamber in Supreme Court. If you will try to break my nation, I will break your heads.” A copy of the tweet by the respondent on assault of Mr.Prashant Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) Bhushan dated 12.10.2011 is annexed and marked as Annexure P-1 (pages _____). 9. An FIR (182/2011) was registered at Tilak Marg Police Station on the same date, i.e. 12.10.2011 and one of the accused Inder Verma was arrested. On the next date, the respondent was arrested by the Delhi Police along with another accused Vishnu Gupta for the assault of Mr. Prashant Bhushan. A chargesheet was later filed by the Delhi Police against the three accused including the respondent under Sections 452, 323, 120(B) and 34 of the IPC for the brutal assault on Mr. Prashant Bhushan. A copy of chargesheet filed in FIR No. 182/2011 dated 2011 is annexed and marked as Annexure P-2 (pages _____). 10. That this incident was tweeted and retweeted on several accounts by various people. Even all the media houses in the country covered this episode. However, the respondent has chosen not to take any defamation action against any one of these people. Where as in the criminal defamation complaint against the petitioner with the motive to harass her, respondent pleads that no one would comment on his case till the trial is completed and he is convicted. A copy of news reports and tweets dated 2011 is annexed and marked as Annexure P-3 (Colly) (pages _____). 11. Between 02.01.2016 and 08.06.2017, Dr Jwala Gurunath on twitter (@DrJwalaG) repeatedly accused the respondent of sexual harassment for calling her 33 times in a night for wanting to stay overnight. She has addressed these tweets to prominent persons including the Prime minster, Home Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) ministry, Delhi Police, Bangalore police and to the public at large. Similar comments made on twitter by other persons. A copy of tweets accusing respondent for sexual harassment by Dr Jwala Gurunath dated nil is annexed and marked as Annexure P- 4 (Colly) (pages _____). 12. A police complaint was lodged by Dr. Jawala Gurunath on 01.01.2016 with the Karnataka Police against the respondent for sexual harassment and insult to her caste identity. In her letter to the police, Dr Gurunath has accused the respondent of making an indecent proposal by calling her nearly 25 times. On 08.01.2016, an FIR 3/2016 was registered by the Karnataka Police at Kalburgi, Karnataka on the complaint of Dr. Jwala Gurunath against the respondent. The case was subsequently transferred to Bangaluru. Crime No. 32/2016 was registered by Bangaluru Police under Section 3 of SC&ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, and Section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000. Though the complainant had alleged harassment by the respondent, the FIR did not mention the sections in IPC relating to sexual harassment. 13. It is pertinent to mention here that Dr. Jwala Gurunath even wrote to the petitioner via email informing about the sexual harassment incident. So, it is safe to say that petitioner only tweeted what is already in the public domain. A copy of the complaint made by Dr. Jwala Gurunath dated 01.01.2016 and the email written by Dr. Jwala Gurunath to the petitioner dated xx is annexed and marked as Annexure P-5 (pages _____). Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) 14. Respondent even tried to defend himself in one the print interview. Hence for the respondent to state in the present complaint that he has never been accused of sexual harassment case is in toto false and fabricated. A copy of the interview of respondent dated nil is annexed and marked as Annexure P-6 (pages _____). 15. Ld. Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in a petition filed by the respondent herein under Section 482 CrPC, vide judgment dated 14.07.2016, quashed proceedings in Crime No. 32/16 of Kumaraswamy Layout police station, Bengaluru on the ground that the complainant (Dr. Jawala Gurunath) had not disclosed in her complaint that the respondent was not a member of SC/ST and that he had intentionally insulted her with an intent to humiliate in public view. The learned single judge also observed that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court had already struck down Section 66A of the IT Act and therefore, the said offence was not attracted. A copy of the said judgment dated 14.07.2016 of the Karnataka High Court is annexed as and marked as Annexure P-7 (pages _____). 16. On 14.03.2017, the respondent was appointed by the BJP as their spokesperson for the Delhi State unit of the party. A copy of the announcement made by Delhi BJP on 14.03.2017 is annexed and marked as Annexure P-8 (pages _____). 17. On 15.03.2017, the petitioner through her Twitter handle i.e. @bainjal was commenting on the code of conduct of the Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) ruling party in appointment of a spokesperson of low credentials as that of the respondent while tweeting that “Now the man who beat up @pbhushan1 was arrested in a sexual harassment case speaks for @BJP4India.