FIR against Congress leader Jitu Patwari for tampering PM’s bhoomi pujan photo

Deccan Chronicle.  | Rabindra Nath Choudhury

Nation, In Other News

The Congress leader however said he had not made any derogatory or offensive remarks against the PM

Congress's state Working President Jitu Patwari speaks to media. FIR against Patwari for tampering PM’s photograph. (File Photo- PTI )

Bhopal: Police in Indore on Sunday lodged an FIR against former minister and Madhya Pradesh Congress unit working president Jitu Patwari for portraying Prime Minister Narendra Modi in poor light by posting his morphed photograph in social media and making ‘objectionable’ remarks against him.

Police booked the Congress leader, said to be close to ex-AICC president Rahul Gandhi, under sections 188 (Disobedience to official order) and 464 (making a false document) of Indian Penal Code (IPC) following a complaint lodged by Indore Lok Sabha member Shankar Lalwani and several other BJP leaders.

“The Congress MLA posted a photo of the PM taken when the latter was performing bhoomi pujan for construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya on August 5. Jitu Patwari tampered with the photo and made undignified remarks against the PM which caused damage to his dignity and hurt sentiments of people”, the complaint said.

Patwari has since deleted the controversial tweet posted by him on Saturday.

The Congress leader however said he had not made any derogatory or offensive remarks against the PM. He wanted to highlight the Centre’s failures on economic and employment fronts by posting the tweet.

Indore range deputy inspector general of police Harinarayanchari Mishra said police was investigating the matter.

This was the second time Patwari’s tweet landed him in soup.

In a twitter post in June, Patwari said, “Five daughters were born namely demonetization, goods and sales tax (GST), employment, inflation and economic slowdown while expecting a son called vikas (development)”.

Chief minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan had taken strong exception to the tweet, describing it ‘anti-women’.

Read more...