Bombay High Court
Farah Deeba vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 29 July, 2025
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2025:BHC-AS:31771-DB
DDR cri.wp3257-25.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3257 OF 2025
Ms. Farah Deeba )
Age. 46 years, Occ. Household )
R/at. B-7, 801, Margosa Heights )
Mohammadwadi, Pune - 411060 ) ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra )
(At the instance of Kalepadal )
Police Station in FIR No.178 of 2025) )
2. Sheetal Vinod Bhujbal )
Age - 35 years, )
B-6/602, Margosa Heights )
Mohammadwadi, Pune - 411060 ) ..Respondents
________________________
Mr. Harshad Sathe i/b. Mr. Saurabh Bhutala for Petitioners.
Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for Respondent No.1 - State.
Mr. Ratandeep Gaikwad, API, Kalepadal Police Station, Pune.
________________________
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 25th June 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 29th July 2025.
1/10
DDR cri.wp3257-25.doc
JUDGMENT (PER : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) :
-
1) By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Petitioner is
seeking quashing of First Information Report (FIR) No. 178 of 2025, dated
15th May 2025, registered with Kalepadal Police Station, Pune, for the
offences punishable under Sections 152, 196, 197, 352 and 353 of the
Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS 2023').
2) Heard Mr. Sathe, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Smt.
Deshmukh, learned APP for State. Perused entire record produced before
us.
3) In the FIR it is alleged that, both the Petitioner and the first
informant are residing in the same Housing Society in Pune City, known as
Margosa Heights. A WhatsApp group was created by a female member of
the Society, only for the females residing in the Society named as 'Sath Sath
Margosa Ladies'. Around 380 female members became part of this
WhatsApp group. On 7th May 2025, the Indian Armed Forces carried out
'Operation Sindoor' thereby destroying terrorist launch pads situated in and
around the neighbouring country. The members of the WhatsApp group of
'Sath Sath Margosa Ladies' started praising the Indian Armed Forces for
conducting 'Operation Sindoor'. Many members of the group started
sending their commending messages in the group. The Petitioner at the
DDR cri.wp3257-25.doc
same time sent a message stating that, 'we have T.V. and mobiles, therefore,
the group should not be used as a National News Channel' to which one of
the group member replied saying that, it was perfect time to show solidarity
towards the Nation, Army and Prime Minister, ending her message with
words 'Jai Hind, Jai Bharat'. To which a few other members replied 'Jai
Hind'. Immediately the Petitioner reacted with laughing emoji. Thereafter
there were certain exchange of WhatsApp messages. The Petitioner
subsequently sent few more messages on the said WhatsApp group and also
updated WhatsApp status with a link of a Facebook video to which some of
the members of the WhatsApp group who were known to the Petitioner,
objected. The Petitioner went ahead and also sent further messages which
were against the Prime Minister and also against the country. Based on such
WhatsApp messages sent by the Petitioner, the FIR was lodged by the First
Informant against the Petitioner.
4) It is contended by the Petitioner that, the Petitioner was
mentally not in a sound condition, when the alleged incident took place. As
soon as the Petitioner realized that, few members of the WhatsApp group,
including Complainant, did not compliment the messages which were sent
by the Petitioner, she immediately deleted those WhatsApp messages. It is
also further contended, that the Petitioner had in fact apologized to the
Complainant, when the Complainant expressed her condemnation towards
DDR cri.wp3257-25.doc
the messages posted by the Petitioner. The Petitioner is already at a loss as
she was expelled from the school where she was teaching. The notice under
Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not served by a
recognized method. The said notice was served on WhatsApp belatedly.
There are no merits in the contents of the FIR, hence no purpose would be
served if the FIR is kept pending. Therefore, the FIR requires to be quashed
and set aside.
5) Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the quashing of the
FIR and submitted that on perusal of the entire FIR, it shows that, there is
ample evidence against the Petitioner to implicate her under Section 152,
196, 197, 352 and 353 of the BNS 2023. Petitioner is accused of uploading
scene/picture of burning Indian National Flag on her WhatsApp status. She
is also accused of uploading derogative remarks against the country by
using the word "Makkar". Going through the statement recorded it clearly
shows that, a prima facie offence as alleged is made out against the
Petitioner. Therefore, the investigation of crime needs to be completed to
take it to its logical end and the impugned FIR cannot be quashed at this
stage. The fact that, the Petitioner herself has claimed that, her mother's
and father's families hail from Pakistan and therefore, when the
investigation is still in progress, the FIR should not be quashed at this stage.
6) For quashing criminal proceedings under Article 226 of
DDR cri.wp3257-25.doc
Constitution of India or under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, it
has to be seen whether the allegations in the complaint and FIR prima facie
indicate that, there is sufficient material against the accused person of
having committed an offence.
7) The Petitioner is a well educated lady holding a Masters Degree
in English and also a B. Ed. Degree. It is alleged in the FIR that, the
Petitioner uploaded a video of burning Indian National flag, on her
WhatsApp status. So also, when the group members of WhatsApp group
were praising the Indian Army for their achievement in 'Operation Sindoor',
she in a very careless manner reacted with a "laughing emoji" in the group.
She had further sent a WhatsApp message on 10 th May 2025, stating therein
that, the families of the Petitioner's i.e. paternal and maternal sides both are
from Pakistan. She has further used a word 'Makkar' before India. Apart
from these messages targeting the country, she has also sent messages
targeting the Prime Minister of our country. Though the Petitioner tendered
her apology to the Complainant, however, in our view, innumerable damage
has already been caused by the Petitioner's messages which were circulated.
The unrest in the local areas after the message of the Petitioner, can be seen
from the photographs which are exhibited to the Petition, which shows
group of people have approached local police station.
8) In our view, the acts of the Petitioner, initially reacting with a
DDR cri.wp3257-25.doc
laughing emoji, when others in the WhatsApp group were applauding the
steps taken by the Indian Government and the Indian Army with respect to
'Operation Sindoor' and thereafter, she on her WhatsApp status, uploaded a
video wherein the Prime Minister of India, has been shown as sitting on a
rocket and the Indian National flag shown burning, attracts the provisions
of Section 152, 196, 197, 352 and 353 of the BNS 2023. Further, the
Petitioner is seen to be informing the Complainant that her families
belonged to neighboring country Pakistan and she addressed the Nation as
'Makkar'. This itself shows the mens rea behind the alleged crime
committed by the Petitioner.
9) It is the petitioner's claim that her maternal and paternal
families hail from Pakistan, in such a situation she making such a
derogatory statement against India will have some bearing on the situation
then prevailing and as to the statement/s she made. Her statement had
come immediately after the Indian army successfully conducted the
'Operation Sindoor' therefore her such statement and her own WhatsApp
status had created a high possibility of stirring up with the emotions in
group of people on the WhatsApp group and subsequently others going to
the local police station and raising slogans and 'dharna' thereby insisting
police to take action against the petitioner. What is expected of a prudent
person is that, before putting up any kind of message on social group, a
DDR cri.wp3257-25.doc
person like the petitioner who is educated and teacher by profession should
also think about the pros and cons which might occur due to sending online
messages through her social media account (WhatsApp). In such a
situation, she subsequently adopting a defence that, she has now realized
those messages were controversial and posted them due to her deranged
mental condition will not be helpful to her, as it will be duty of police to
further investigate and find out in these circumstances where she herself
claims that families of her father and mother are from the neighbouring
country, Pakistan.
10) The intention of the Petitioner becomes an essential ingredient
to be judged with the kind of language she has used for India and more
particularly when the whole country was feeling proud of our army. She
could have probably avoided reacting with a laughing emoji, when others
were celebrating the event of successful mission of the Indian Army of
'Operation Sindoor'.
11) Admittedly, in the present proceedings, the notice under
Section 41(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was issued to the
Petitioner. The only objection taken by the Petitioner towards the notice, is
that, the said notice was sent on WhatsApp. The Petitioner having
knowledge that, the notice had been issued to her, ought to have replied it.
Instead Petitioner chose to remain silent on the allegations made in the
DDR cri.wp3257-25.doc
Notice.
12) The police are yet to file chargesheet, therefore, at this stage,
according to us, the FIR cannot be quashed. After hearing Advocates for
both sides and perusing the record, we had in fact given an opportunity to
learned Advocate appearing for Petitioners, to withdraw the present
Petition and file an Application for discharge before the trial Court, if police
files charge-sheet. However, on the next day, learned Advocate for the
Petitioner submitted that, the Petitioner is inviting an Order on merits and
does not wish to withdraw the writ petition.
13) The Supreme Court in the cases of (i) State of Haryana & Ors.
vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, (ii) Rajeev Kourav vs. Baisahab
& others, (2020) 3 SCC 317, and (iii) Kaptan Singh vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others, (2021) 9 SCC 35, has held that, exercise of powers
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the
proceedings is an exception and not a rule. Appreciation of evidence is not
permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of powers
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
14) Similarly, in the case of CBI vs. Aryan Singh, AIR 2023 SC
1987, the Supreme Court has held that, while exercising the power under
Section 482, the High Court should not conduct a mini trial.
DDR cri.wp3257-25.doc
15) In a recent case of Ashraf Khan alias Nisrat Khan Versus State
of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.20227 of 2025 , the
Allahabad High Court, deciding a Bail Application, where the accused was
prosecuted for uploading edited videos on his Facebook account during the
India-Pakistan war. The videos depicted the Prime Minister of India moving
next to a donkey pulling a cart and image implying that the Prime Minister
was seeking an apology from Pakistan. The Court, while rejecting the Bail
Application, held that, though our Constitution gives Right to Freedom of
Speech and Expression to every citizen, that freedom does not stretch to
permit a person posting videos other posts disrespecting the Prime Minister,
the Indian military and its officers. Such content could cause disharmony
among the people of India and in some cases could promote separatism and
endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India. It has become a
fashion among certain groups of people to misuse social media in the garb
of "Freedom of Speech and Expression" by making baseless allegations
against high dignitaries, posting such material that creates hatred and
disharmony among the people. Such actions are detrimental to national
unity and public order. Such action shows disrespect not only against Prime
Minister of country but also against the Indian Military and its officers. We
are in agreement with the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in the
case of Ashraf Khan (supra).
16) After considering the contents of FIR and the various
DDR cri.wp3257-25.doc
documents on record, we are satisfied that it constitutes the ingredients of
the alleged offences. Also taking into account the law as laid down by the
Supreme Court in the judgments referred above, we find that there is no
merit in the present Petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.
17) Hence, present Petition stands dismissed.
(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (A. S. GADKARI, J.)
Signed by: Diksha Rane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 29/07/2025 16:55:14
