# Aadil Murtaza v. Union Of India & Ors - **Citation:** (2016) 3 ILRA 56 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-02-29 - **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Attau Rahman Masoodi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/aadil-murtaza-v-union-of-india-ors-43486 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Constitution of India - Article 226 - Mandamus - Prayer to restrain release and screening of cinematograph film - Alleged prejudice to pending criminal trial - Alleged damage to reputation of petitioner - Film cleared by censor board - No material to justify judicial interference - Writ petition dismissed. It appears that the allegations of the petitioner are basically an apprehension about affecting the trial of the petitioner in the criminal case. The depicting of film has a disclaimer and even otherwise the story of the film is not alleged to be a part of the evidence or the charge sheet in order to prosecute the petitioner. Consequently, the film not being evidence in relation to the criminal trial, we do not find any reason for apprehension of the petitioner to seek the relief as prayed for.. (Paras 6) Held: (Para 7-12) A correspondent or reporter has the risky job of reporting such news and incidents that may or may not be conducive news for dissemination in the society. This may give rise to legal issues even if it has a larger social dimension in public interest. In the present case, the petitioner has undertaken that risk himself as alleged in the F.I.R. lodged by the Professor. This is clearly a subject matter of evidence and, therefore, we refrain from commenting upon the status of the alleged investigation or participation of the petitioner, the same being subject to trial. Once the film has been cleared by the censor board and it has been allowed to be screened, we do not find any such material on record so as to interfere in the matter. We thus, do not find any merit in the writ petition. Dismissed. The rejection of this writ petition will, however, not affect either the trial or prejudice any other rights of defence of the petitioner. Case Law discussed: - ## Text 56 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 10. From the above extracted portion of the judgment, it is evident that investigation is required to be conducted in context of an incident/transaction and not by merely accepting the version given in the First Information Report by the first informant. 11. We are conscious of the fact that the petitioners have been accused of committing an offence. This however would not mean that the case set up by the complainant is to be accepted as such. In case the petitioners / accused have some material that can be translated into legal evidence to establish that they have not committed the offence, the said material would surely be relevant in context of the incident / transaction to be investigated. 12. In case all the aspects of the issue/incident are not investigated, there is a chance of miscarriage of justice and implication of wrong persons as accused. 13. Going by the law referred to above, the investigating officer is directed to investigate the incident, also while taking into account the documents referred to by the petitioners in this petition. The petitioners shall further be at liberty to supplement their case by way of sending any other documents so as to clarify the issue, to the investigating officer. 14. We also direct that investigation be conducted with the aid and assistance of an officer from the Revenue Department. 15. With the above observations/directions, the petition is dismissed, because there are seriously disputed questions of facts. 16. Let a copy of this order be conveyed to the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki. ---------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 29.02.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J. THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J. Misc. Bench No.- 4154 of 2016 Aadil Murtaza ...Petitioner Versus Union Of India & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Dr. Manoj Kumar Dubey, Subhash Chandra Ojha Counsel for the Respondents: A.S.G 3 All. Aadil Murtaza Vs. Union Of India & Ors. 57 Constitution of India - Article 226 - Mandamus - Prayer to restrain release and screening of cinematograph film - Alleged prejudice to pending criminal trial - Alleged damage to reputation of petitioner - Film cleared by censor board - No material to justify judicial interference - Writ petition dismissed. It appears that the allegations of the petitioner are basically an apprehension about affecting the trial of the petitioner in the criminal case. The depicting of film has a disclaimer and even otherwise the story of the film is not alleged to be a part of the evidence or the charge sheet in order to prosecute the petitioner. Consequently, the film not being evidence in relation to the criminal trial, we do not find any reason for apprehension of the petitioner to seek the relief as prayed for.. (Paras 6) Held: (Para 7-12) A correspondent or reporter has the risky job of reporting such news and incidents that may or may not be conducive news for dissemination in the society. This may give rise to legal issues even if it has a larger social dimension in public interest. In the present case, the petitioner has undertaken that risk himself as alleged in the F.I.R. lodged by the Professor. This is clearly a subject matter of evidence and, therefore, we refrain from commenting upon the status of the alleged investigation or participation of the petitioner, the same being subject to trial. Once the film has been cleared by the censor board and it has been allowed to be screened, we do not find any such material on record so as to interfere in the matter. We thus, do not find any merit in the writ petition. Dismissed. The rejection of this writ petition will, however, not affect either the trial or prejudice any other rights of defence of the petitioner. Case Law discussed: - (Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. & Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.) 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a mandamus that the respondents be directed not to release and screen the film titled as 'Aligarh'. 2. The contention which is being raised in this writ petition is by a press reporter who had allegedly participated in a sting operation against a Professor of the Aligarh Muslim University to depict his alleged unlawful gay relationship and indulgence in homosexual acts inside the campus of the University in a residential accommodation. 3. The said Professor lodged an F.I.R. in which the petitioner was also named and the petitioner is facing prosecution for having invaded the right of privacy of the said Professor as well as other offences under the IPC. The contention of the petitioner is that the screening and exhibition of the film shall directly damage the reputation of the petitioner as also affect the criminal trial which is pending against him. 4. It is under these circumstances, a prayer has been made for issuing a mandamus, as framed in the present writ petition. 5. We have heard Sri Subhash Chandra Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vimal Srivastava for the Union of India. 58 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 6. It appears that the allegations of the petitioner are basically an apprehension about affecting the trial of the petitioner in the criminal case. We may observe that the depicting of film has a disclaimer and even otherwise the story of the film is not alleged to be a part of the evidence or the charge sheet in order to prosecute the petitioner. Consequently, the film not being evidence in relation to the criminal trial, we do not find any reason for apprehension of the petitioner to seek the relief as prayed for. 7. The second contention of the petitioner is about his own reputation as a reporter. A correspondent or reporter has the risky job of reporting such news and incidents that may or may not be conducive news for dissemination in the society. A reporter carrying a news and a correspondent forwarding it to the editor always runs the risk of either trenching upon anybody's prestige or depicting a story which otherwise may allure a film company to adopt the same. This may give rise to legal issues even if it has a larger social dimension in public interest. 8. In the present case, the petitioner has undertaken that risk himself as alleged in the F.I.R. lodged by the Professor. The petitioner has taken a defence that he was not involved in the same. This is clearly a subject matter of evidence and, therefore, we refrain from commenting upon the status of the alleged investigation or participation of the petitioner in the aforesaid incident, the same being subject to trial. 9. Consequently, once the film has been cleared by the censor board and it has been allowed to be screened, we do not find any such material on record so as to interfere in the matter and to stop the screening or exhibition of the film by way of a mandamus. The film having been made on a story which appears to be more of a moral and social debate with regard to protection of the right to privacy as against gay rights is, therefore, not a matter which can be the basis for judicial scrutiny in the present case in order to restrain the screening of the film. 10. We thus, do not find any merit in the writ petition. 11. Dismissed. 12. The rejection of this writ petition will, however, not affect either the trial or prejudice any other rights of defence of the petitioner. ---------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.02.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, C J. THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J. Public Interest Litigation No.- 3127 of 2016 Agnivesh & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents