The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition filed by a journalist seeking quashing of an FIR lodged against him for allegedly forwarding a seven-page message in a WhatsApp group that claimed beef consumption was essential for being a “good Hindu.” The claims reportedly included assertions that bovine meat consumption was obligatory for certain religious rituals, that members of the Brahmin community regularly consumed cow or bull meat, and that cow and bull sacrifices had been part of certain ancient religious ceremonies. The message in question was posted in a private WhatsApp group administered by the petitioner, identified as “B P Bauddh Patrakar News Group,” in which only the administrator was permitted to post messages. The group reportedly had only voluntary members who had opted to join. The complaint, filed by a person named Ram Mohan Tiwari, alleged that the content was derogatory toward Hindus, especially the Brahmin community, and deeply hurt religious sentiments.
The FIR registered against the journalist invoked provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including sections dealing with promoting disharmony between groups, intentional acts to outrage religious feelings, making false statements to mischief, and participating in activity likely to cause fear among a group. The journalist challenged the FIR arguing that the material he forwarded was merely an excerpt from a book authored by Dr Surendra Kumar Sharma (Agyaat), which to his knowledge had never been banned by any authority. His counsel contended that the sharing was done in good faith, within a private group, and as part of legitimate journalistic practice — thus protected under freedom of speech and expression and freedom of the press guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The Court, in a bench presided over by Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke, observed that the allegations “when taken at their face value, disclose prima facie ingredients of the offences invoked.” The Court held that whether the petitioner acted with malicious intent, whether the quoted extract was academic in nature or capable of disturbing public tranquillity, and whether his posting exceeded the permissible limits of free speech are matters that would have to be examined during the course of investigation. The Court emphasized that such issues cannot be adjudicated during the preliminary writ stage.
The petitioner had also argued that the FIR was motivated by mala fide intent, suggesting that it was a retaliatory counter-blast to earlier critical reporting by him against local police. He pointed out that the group was of his own creation and that he had received a WhatsApp message from the local police station in charge directing that a complaint be filed against him soon after he had shared those messages. However, the Court found that such allegations of mala fide could not form the basis for quashing the FIR at the threshold stage, as they necessitate a factual inquiry. The Court noted that a mere assertion of bad faith was insufficient to halt criminal proceedings when the FIR prima facie discloses cognizable offences.
Relying on the precedent of the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court reiterated that quashing of FIRs is justified only in rarest of rare cases where allegations do not constitute any offence or are inherently absurd or improbable. Since the allegations in the FIR appeared cognizable, the Court held that the investigation must be allowed to proceed unhindered. Consequently, the petition seeking quashing of the FIR was dismissed and the criminal proceedings continue in accordance with law.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.