In a significant ruling, a sessions court in Ahmedabad has firmly rejected the Gujarat state government's application seeking permission to withdraw a criminal prosecution against 19 activists of the Karni Sena. The case stems from a violent protest in 2018 against the Bollywood film 'Padmavat'.
Court Cites 'Personal Interest' and Public Damage
Additional Sessions Judge Hardik Shah delivered the verdict, noting that the alleged offences were committed "to achieve personal interest and to maintain dominance of a particular community." The court emphasized that the act ignored public interest. It also highlighted the substantial material damage caused during the incident, which was pegged at Rs 16.40 lakh.
The judge pointed out that the public prosecutor had not applied his independent mind to the state's request. The court cannot merely rubber-stamp a government order for withdrawal under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The application lacked reasoned justification, and permitting withdrawal in such a scenario would be against public interest and Supreme Court guidelines.
Recap of the 2018 Violent Protest
The legal saga originates from events on January 23, 2018. Activists of the Karni Sena had organized a candle march in Ahmedabad to protest the release of the movie 'Padmavat'. The peaceful demonstration escalated into violence, leading to incidents of rioting, vandalism at a mall, torching of vehicles, and damage to public property.
Following an investigation by the Vastrapur police, a chargesheet was filed against the 19 accused. They were booked under serious provisions including:
- Rioting and unlawful assembly
- Criminal conspiracy
- Arson
- Section 3(1) of the Damages to Public Property Act
- Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act
The criminal case has been pending for committal proceedings in the sessions court since 2019.
Government's Failed Attempts to Withdraw Case
This was the state government's second failed attempt to get the case dropped. Its first request was made before a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) court, which refused the plea in 2022. The government then approached the sessions court in Ahmedabad (rural).
In its submission, the state argued that withdrawing the prosecution was in the "interest of the general public at large" and would aid the administration of justice. It contended that the accused were "young persons who acted in the heat of passion" and were high on emotions at the time, and that none of them was criminal by nature.
The court, however, found these arguments insufficient. It ruled that the gravity of the offence, the calculated damage to public property, and the motive behind the act outweighed the state's reasoning. The case will now proceed through the normal judicial process.
