The Allahabad High Court dismissed an application filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C to quash the charge sheet dated 31.10.2021 in a Criminal Case arising out of the Crime under Sections 295A IPC and Section 67 of the I.T. Act, 2008.
The court observed that the right to freedom of expression comes with its own set of special responsibilities and duties; it does not confer upon the citizens the right to speak without responsibility nor does it grant an unfettered licence for every possible use of language.
Brief Facts:
An FIR has been lodged by the complainant against the applicant on 08.10.2021, under Sections 67 of the I.T. Act, which came to be registered with the allegations that an objectionable message has been posted on social media (Whatsapp) regarding the remarks on "Maa Durga", which has hurt the sentiments of the people of the Hindu community and there is a resistance shown by the aforesaid community.
After investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet under Section 295A IPC and Section 67 of the I.T. Act, 2008, pursuant to which the applicant has been summoned by the concerned court vide order dated 31.10.2021. Hence, the present petition has been filed.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The Learned Counsel for the Applicant argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant had received the message, but the same was not sent/forwarded by him. He further submits that the applicant has neither sent any such message nor he could do anything like this and has been falsely implicated by the opposite party no.2, who belongs to Hindu Vahini.
He said that no ingredients of Section 67 of I.T. Act are existing under the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, no offence under the relevant sections is made out against the applicant. He further contended that as there are no ingredients to substantiate the said fact as alleged in the FIR, therefore, the proceedings initiated amount to nothing but abuse of the process of law and the same is liable to be quashed.
Contentions of the opposite party:
The Learned Counsel for the opposite party argued that during the investigation, two mobile phones have been recovered from the applicants, and on examination of whatsapp messages of the aforesaid, the allegations, as leveled against the applicant regarding the messages, are found to be true as the same finds a place in the whatsapp chat of the applicant. He further argued that on perusal of the first information report as well as the statements as given by the witnesses, a cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. From the aforesaid, the offence under Section 67 of the I.T. Act is made out as such messages are found in the WhatsApp chat of the mobile recovered from the applicant. Therefore, the present application is liable to be dismissed.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that on close reading of aforesaid Section 295A IPC, it indicates that section 295A does not stipulate everything to be penalized and any and every act be tantamount to insult or attempt to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of a class of citizens. It penalizes only those acts of insults to or those varieties of attempts to insult the religion or religious belief of a class of citizens that are perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class of citizens. Insults to religion offered unwittingly or carelessly or without any deliberate or malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of that class do not come within the Section.
Further, the Court remarked that the internet and social media has become important tool through which individuals can exercise their right to freedom of expression but the right to freedom of expression comes with its own set of special responsibilities and duties. It does not confer upon the citizens the right to speak without responsibility nor does it grant an unfettered license for every possible use of language.
The decision of the Court:
The Allahabad High Court, dismissing the petition, held that the cognizable offence against the applicant is made out.
Case Title: Dr. Shiv Sidharth @ Shiv Kumar Bharti v State of U.P & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Manju Rani Chauhan
Case no.: APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6090 of 2023
Advocate for the Revisionist: Mr. Brijesh Kumar Prajapati
Advocate for the Respondent: G.A.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
