The Supreme Court on Monday transferred five 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 first case lodged against her in Delhi.
A three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud also gave her liberty to approach the Delhi High Court to quash the criminal cases against her.
The apex court further directed that its January 20 interim order protecting her from coercive action by the police in the present or future FIRs based on the ‘Kaali’ film poster would continue until a charge sheet was filed by the investigating officer under 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 government.
However, the court did not agree with the plea of advocate Indira Unninayyar, appearing for Ms. Manimekalai, to directly 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 explained.
The first FIR against Ms. Manimekali was filed through the Intelligence Fusion and Strategic Operations (IFSO) unit of the Delhi Police’s special cell. The others were 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 finally at Haridwar in Uttarakhand. All the FIRs were registered between July 4 and July 8 last year.
The court chose to bring all the cases to Delhi as the first FIR was registered in the national capital.
On January 20, the apex court, giving interim protection to the film maker said the “institution of FIRs in multiple States would be a matter of serious prejudice to the petitioner”.
