Prayagraj: Allahabad HC nixes to interfere in case against controversial joker Kunal Kamra

Share this post on:

Prayagraj, 29th April: The High Court refused to interfere on the petition filed in the Allahabad High Court seeking registration of an FIR against the famous comedian Kunal Kamra.

The order of Magistrate Court and Sessions Judge Varanasi was challenged by filing a petition in the High Court, under which the petition filed under Section 156(3) of the FIR against the comedian was rejected.

Comedian Kunal Kamra, in a petition filed by petitioner advocate Saurabh Tiwari, is accused of editing the tri-colour hoisted on the Supreme Court building. It is alleged that Kamra edited the flag of a political party with the wrong intention and also posted it on Twitter. Due to which the national flag tri-colour has been insulted.

The petitioner advocate had sought registration of a case against comedian Kunal Kamra under the Prevention of Insults to National Pride Act, 1971. The state government, comedian Kunal Kamra and SHO Lanka police station Varanasi were made parties in the petition.

It is worth noting that comedian Kunal Kamra made this controversial tweet on November 11 2020 in which he also made indecent remarks against the Supreme Court. The contempt hearing in the matter is going on in the Supreme Court.

At the same time, a petition was filed in the High Court for registration of an FIR regarding the insult to the national flag and tri-colour.

According to the petitioner, he had given a complaint to register a case in this matter at the Lanka police station in Varanasi. Due to non-registration of the case, an application was filed seeking registration of a case in the sessions court.

However, the Sessions Judge dismissed the application on the ground that it was not a matter of our jurisdiction. After which the petitioner filed a petition in the Allahabad High Court challenging the decision of the Magistrate and Sessions Judge, Varanasi.

In this case, Justice Rahul Chaturvedi, Judge of the High Court did not interfere, but said that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under CrPC and can use it.

Share this post on: