What Is Not Written Cannot Be Taken By Way Of Interpretation: Bombay HC Quashes FIR Filed Against Lecturer Accused Of Insulting Maratha Community In FB Post
The Bombay High Court quashed FIR and criminal proceedings against a lecturer accused of insulting the Maratha Community in a Facebook post.
The Court noted that the post does not make a specific mention of Maratha community.
The bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice SG Chapalgaonkar observed, “We do not agree with the statement on behalf of learned APP that we will have to interpret the post in present scenario. What is not written there cannot be taken by way of interpretation. The informant or the witnesses cannot interpret the said post as per their own convenience or belief. That should have been the intention of the person who posts the post.."
Advocate AV Indrale Patil appeared for the Appellant and APP GA Kulkarni appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The Petitioner, a lecturer in Economics with no criminal record was contesting an FIR filed by Respondent who is an advocate, alleging that the Petitioner posted content on Facebook that offended the Maratha community. The Petitioner claimed he had no intention to insult any community and that the post was not directed at anyone in particular. Upon realising that the post was being misinterpreted, the Petitioner immediately deleted it, but the informant took a screenshot and filed the FIR.
The Court observed, “Section 196 (1A) previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government is mandatory before the Court takes cognizance of the offence under Section 295-A of Indian Penal Code.”
The Court further observed, “…in respect of Section 196 (1A) no Court shall take cognizance of the offence under sub-section (2) of Section 505 of Indian Penal Code except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government or of the District Magistrate.”
“…the distinction between sub-section (1) and sub-section (1A) of Section 196 would show that District Magistrate has no authority to accord sanction for offence punishable under Section 295-A of Indian Penal Code.”, the Court added.
The Court noted that the post does not make a specific mention of the Maratha community or it does not specifically say that the Maratha community had given inferior behaviour to OBC and had given oppressive treatment and then they are demanding reservation from OBC quota.
Accordingly, the Court quashed and set aside the FIR and the proceedings.
Cause Title: Suresh Eknath Ghumatkar v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AUG:22271-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate AV Indrale Patil
Respondent: APP GA Kulkarni and Advocate AP Deshmukh