Everybody Now-A-Days Wants To Impress As To How His Religion/God Is Supreme: Bombay HC Quashes FIR Over Offensive WhatsApp Messages About Islam

The accused had sought the quashing of the FIR filed under sections 295A (outraging religious feelings), 504 (intentional insult provoking breach of peace), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The complaint alleged that the accused posted offensive messages about Islam in a WhatsApp group of 150-200 members, expressing frustration that group members, including the complainant, were unwilling to chant 'Vande Mataram'. Allegedly, those not chanting were told to leave India for Pakistan.

A Division Bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Vrushali V Joshi said, “We are constrained to observe that now-a-days people have become more sensitive about their religions may be than before and everybody wants to impress as to how his religion/God is Supreme. We are staying in the democratic secular country, where everybody should respect the religion, caste, creed etc. of another. But at the same time, we would also say that if the person says that his religion is Supreme, then the other person may not immediately react. There are ways and means to react on such sensitive issues.”

Advocate Sameer Sonwana appeared for the Applicant and Additional Government Pleader Anup Badar appeared for the respondents.

The applicants argued that their WhatsApp messages did not amount to deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious sentiments. They asserted their patriotism and reputation as justification for quashing the charges without trial.

The High Court noted that prosecution under IPC section 295A required prior sanction from the State government under section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which was not obtained. The Court added, “Even during this proceedings the said sanction order has not been produced. On this count the FIR and the proceedings need to be quashed and set aside.”

Additionally, the Court questioned the inclusion of the complainant in the group just a day before the FIR was filed, casting doubt on how the complainant's religious feelings could have been offended by conversations that occurred before their inclusion.

The Court also criticized the investigating officer's selective approach in choosing witnesses, all of whom were Muslim, and noted that statements did not sufficiently demonstrate intentional insult under section 295A. The Court said, “The general statements of those witnesses that the applicants were speaking against their community, will not be considered as international insult. Their statements do not show what was the triggering point and when they themselves are not saying that they felt that these applicants are insulting them on their religious beliefs, then it cannot be said that the ingredients of Section 295A of the IPC are attracted.”

Ultimately, the Court concluded that there was no prima facie case against the applicants and therefore quashed the FIR.

Cause Title: Pramod Shendre v The State of Maharashtra & Anr., [2024:BHC-NAG:7890-DB]

Appearance:

Respondents: Additional Government Pleader Anup Badar and Advocate RS Akbani