Bombay High Court
Swidel Rodriguez vs State Of Goa, As Rep. By Officer In ... on 3 October, 2024
Author: M. S. Karnik
Bench: M. S. Karnik
2024:BHC-GOA:1671-DB
2024:BHC-GOA:1671-DB
WPCR-50-2024(1).DOC
Andreza
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 50 OF 2024
Swidel Rodriguez, age 18 years, d/o.
Milton Rodriguez, r/o. H. No. 1091, ... Petitioner
Gaunsa Wado, Bardez, North, Goa.
Ms. 'S'
Versus
1. The State of Goa, As represented by
Officer in charge, Panaji Police Station,
Panaji, Goa.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of
Bombay at Goa, Porvorim, Goa.
...Respondents
3. Mr. Amit Anant Gaonkar, age 38 years,
r/o. Manaswado, Shirgao, Bicholim, Goa.
Ms. Caroline Collasso, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Pravin Faldessai, Additional Public Prosecutor for
the Respondent nos. 1 and 2.
_______________________
CORAM:
M. S. KARNIK &
VALMIKI MENEZES, JJ
RESERVED ON : 25th September 2024
PRONOUNCED ON: 3rd October 2024
_______________________
JUDGMENT (Per M. S. Karnik, J.)
1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
and Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner prays for quashing and
setting aside FIR no. 77/2024 dated 14.05.2024, for offence
3rd October 2024
WPCR-50-2024(1).DOC
punishable under Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),
registered at the Mapusa Police Station.
2. The FIR was lodged against the petitioner allegedly for
"posting and circulating the derogatory comment on social media in
respect of religious rituals performed at Shirgao Bicholim Goa and
thereby outraging the religious sentiments of the complainant and
others." The petitioner is 18 years old and a student of St Xavier's
College at Mapusa. She is a bright student who passed 12 th standard
with distinction. On 12.05.2024, the petitioner came across a
post/reel uploaded by "ingoa24x7", which showcased the emission of
smoke in huge wall of smog along with sights of flame bursts before
the crowd. The petitioner reposted the same post/reel on her private
Instagram account through her story, expressing her concerns
regarding the pollution that could be seen in that post/reel. The
petitioner commented thus :
"I don't know how you can call it a culture or a
tradition and praise anybody while you cause harm
to the environment in such a manner. I might not
be the best person at taking care of the
environment but at least I don't cause harm to such
an extent.
No cause of hatred but be mindful with your acts
and take a stand respectful cultures and traditions
3rd October 2024
WPCR-50-2024(1).DOC
can be taken forward with respect and
mindfulness."
3. The petitioner learnt that on 14.05.2024, a complaint was
made against her by some persons for posting the alleged derogative
comment. Following the complaint, the respondent no.2 lodged the
FIR for offence under Section 295-A of IPC registered at Mapusa
Police Station.
4. Shri Faldessai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing
for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, vehemently opposed the petition. It
is submitted that this is a fit case where the investigation must
proceed as the petitioner with deliberate and malicious intention of
outraging the religious feelings of the complainant has insulted their
religious beliefs. Shri Faldessai urged that the petition be dismissed.
5. We had issued notice to the complainant. There is no
appearance on behalf of the complainant though the notice has been
duly served through the concerned police station.
6. Having heard learned Counsel Ms. Caroline Collasso for the
petitioner and Shri Faldessai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for respondent no. 1 and 2, we are of the considered view that the
present petition deserves to be allowed for the following reasons :
3rd October 2024
WPCR-50-2024(1).DOC
The petitioner re-posted the reel on her private Instagram
account through her story expressing her concerns regarding the
pollution that could be seen in her post/reel. A plain reading of her
comments would indicate that the same even if taken at its face value
are in the context of causing harm to the environment and in fact has
in so many words stated that there is no cause of hatred, but a
personal opinion was expressed that respectful cultures and
traditions can be taken forward with respect and mindfulness.
7. According to us, the comment was only her perception on
environmental impact based on the contents of the post/reel and she
had no intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class
through the said post. She did not intend to outrage the religious
feelings of any class of citizens by reposting the reel or for that matter
insulting or attempting to insult the religion or religious beliefs of the
complainant. The petitioner is 18 years old and has submitted that
she was not aware of the nature of the post/reel and the religiosity
aspect. It is the petitioner's case that she merely raised her concerns
regarding the pollution that could be seen from the post/reel and that
she is a concerned citizen about environmental pollution. The
petitioner has posted her concerns with regards to environment on
her Instagram previously on issues such as Forest Fire, stagnant
water as a breeding ground for mosquitoes etc. The petitioner has
also participated in multiple awareness campaigns through her
3rd October 2024
WPCR-50-2024(1).DOC
school/college pertaining to measures for safeguarding the
environment and actively participated in environment protection
drives that involved planting of trees, distribution of paper and cloth
bags, etc. The petitioner recently participated in a National level essay
writing competition organized by Heartfulness Education Trust,
where she had expressed her concerns regarding how human beings
are harming the beauty of the nature of earth.
8. In the petition it is stated that she has utmost respect for all
religions and has been brought up with good morals about respect
for all religions. After the FIR was registered, the petitioner
immediately put out her public apology on her Instagram stating "I
sincerely apologize. There was no intention on my behalf to harm
or hurt anybody's religious sentiments."
9. In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the present
case, even if the comments made by the petitioner are taken at its face
value, they do not disclose any intention of outraging the religious
feelings of any class or citizens or that the same amounts to insulting
or attempting to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that
class, much less there being deliberate or malicious intention.
10. To arrive at the aforesaid conclusion, we draw support from the
decision of the Supreme Court in Ramji Lal Modi vs. State of U.
3rd October 2024
WPCR-50-2024(1).DOC
P.1. Their Lordships observed that section 295-A does not penalise
any and every act of insult to or attempts to insult the religion or the
religious beliefs of a class of citizens, but it penalises only those acts
of insults to or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs
of a class of citizens, which are perpetrated with the deliberate and
malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class.
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. It only punishes the
aggravated form of insult to religion when it is perpetrated with the
deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings
of that class.
11. We also find it significant to make a profitable reference to the
observations of the Supreme Court in Mahendra Singh Dhoni vs.
Yerraguntla Shyamsundar and anr.2 Their Lordships held that
Section 295-A does not stipulate everything to be penalised and any
and every act would tantamount to insult or attempt to insult the
religion or the religious beliefs of a class of citizens. The Supreme
Court observed that the said provision only punishes the aggravated
form of insult to religion when it is perpetrated with the deliberate
1 1957 AIR 620
2 2017 SCC (7) 760
3rd October 2024
WPCR-50-2024(1).DOC
and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that
class.
12. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are more
than satisfied that the petitioner was in no way trying to hurt the
religious sentiments of the complainant and that the comment was
made only in the context of her concern for causing harm to the
environment.
13. The petition is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause
(A), which reads thus :
"(A) For a writ of certiorari or any other writ,
direction, order in the nature of certiorari or any
other appropriate writ direction order under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing
and setting aside the FIR No 77/2024 dated
14/05/2024 under sections 295-A, 153 and 153A
of IPC of the Mapusa Police Station."
M. S. KARNIK, J
VALMIKI MENEZES, J
3rd October 2024
