Allahabad HC Grants Relief To A Man For Allegedly Referring PM Modi As "Virus Requiring An Urgent Antidote"

“Prima facie, the words attributed to the petitioner do not fall within the purview of Section 504 IPC and, therefore, the matter requires consideration”, a bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Nand Prabha Shukla observed in the matter.

Advocate Aishwarya Pratap Singh appeared for the petitioner and AAG Manish Goel, appeared for the State.

The present petition sought quashing of the FIR dated April 1, 2023 for offences under Section 504 I.P.C. & Section 66 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.

As per the petitioner, no offence under Section 504 I.P.C. or Section 66 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 is made out. Since the words, in any case cannot be said to be derogatory or indecent or to be such, which would fall within the purview of Section 504 I.P.C.

While referring to the relevant section, it was further submitted that the comment in any case was a political comment and was not made to provoke the Prime Minister to break public peace or to comment an offence.

The respondents, however submitting that a cognizable offence is disclosed, contended that the petitioner who claims to be a journalist, has not denied the allegations in the FIR that he is the spokesman of a political party and was making a political statement, which has been made viral.

Therefore, while giving 3 weeks’ time to file counter affidavits to the respondents, and two weeks’ time to petitioner to file rejoinders, the bench noted, “This protection shall be available either till the next listing or till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., whichever is earlier. It is also provided that the petitioner will fully cooperate in the investigation, failing which they shall not be entitled to the benefit of this order”.

Cause Title: Mohd. Farhan v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others