[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Pranhans S/O Namdev Meshram vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Ps, ... on 2 February, 2026

2026:BHC-NAG:1934-DB


                       apl 963-2024 J..doc                                                             1/10



                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                                     CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.963/2024

                               Pranhans s/o Namdev Meshram
                               Aged- Major, Occu. Teacher,
                               R/o At Post Murmadi/Sawari, Taluka
                               Lakhani, District Bhandara
                                                                                               ... APPLICANT

                                                 ...VERSUS...

                       1.      State of Maharashtra,
                               Through Police Station, Lakhani

                       2.      Ku. Trushna Subhash Khedikar,
                               Aged- Major, Occu. Principal,
                               R/o. Post Pashcim Samarth Nagar
                               Murmadi/Sawari, Taluka Lakhani,
                               District Bhandara
                                                                                       ...NON-APPLICANTS
                       ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Shri A.M. Quazi, Advocate h/f Shri T.A. Mirza, Advocate for applicant
                       Mrs S.V. Kolhe, APP for non-applicant No.1/State
                       Shri H.A. Khedikar, Advocate for non-applicant No.2
                       ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               CORAM :            PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.

                               DATED :           02.02.2026


                       ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard. By consent of the parties, this matter is taken

for final disposal at admission stage.

2. By this application, the applicant is seeking to quash

and set aside the order dated 04.05.2024 passed by learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Lakhani and further to quash and set aside

the charge-sheet in Crime No.117/2020 registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 295A, 153(A) (1) (b), 505(2) of the

Indian Penal Code by the police Station Lakhani.

3. The submission of the present applicant in the present

case is that there is no sanctioned obtained by the investigating

officer from the State Government as required under the provisions

to law and secondly even the allegations are taken at their face

value, the offence under Section 295(A), 153, and 505 of the Indian

Penal Code is not made out against him in the matter. Hence, seeks

indulgence of this Court to quash and set aside the proceedings

registered against him.

4. The case of the prosecution in short is that, on

31.05.2020, at around 3 p.m., the applicant forwarded a seditious

and anti-national message in the School group, criticizing the

enforcement of lockdown on 24.03.2020 under Section 144 of the

Criminal Procedure Code. In view of this, a written complaint was

lodged by non-applicant No.2 to the Police Station, Lakhani, and

thereby the offence came to be registered against the present

applicant.

5. It is pertinent to note that there was a delay of 72 days

in filing the final report by the investigating officer to the learned

Judicial Magistrate. Accordingly, the application was moved for

condonation of delay of 72 days in filing the complaint. The said

application was strongly opposed by the present applicant stating

that there is a need of sanction of prosecution from the Government

and in absence of same, the Court cannot take cognizance nor the

charge-sheet can be filed in the matter. However, learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Lakhani, by his order dated 04.05.2024 by

observing that the taking of cognizance is different than filing of

final report allowed the application for condonation of 72 days

delay. In the circumstances, the applicant approached before this

Court challenging the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Lakhani, dated 04.05.2024 as well as the charge-sheet

which is accepted and criminal proceeding registered as R.C.C.

No.59/2024 pending before the Magistrate.

6. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it will be

relevant to consider Section 295 A of the Indian Penal Code which

reads as under:

"295-A. Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of [citizens of India], [by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise], insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to [three years], or with fine, or with both."

7. The perusal of Section 295A, what is important is that

there should be a deliberate and malicious intention of outraging

the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India by words or by

signs or by visible representations or otherwise. As such, Section

295A does not penalized each and every act of insult or attempt to

insult the religion of religious beliefs of a class of citizens, but it

penalized only those acts of insults to or those varieties of attempts

to insult the religion or the religious belies of class of citizens which

are perpetrated with deliberate and malicious intentions of

outraging the religious feelings of that class. Insult to religion

offered unwillingly or without any deliberate or malicious intention

to outrage the religious feeling of that class do not come within

Section 295 A of the Indian Penal Code.

8. It is further pertinent to note that offences enumerated

under Section 196 of the Criminal Procedure Code in respect of

which prior sanction has been made mandatory, which deal with

matters relating to public peace and tranquility with which the

State Government is concerned. Those offences being exceptional in

nature, previous sanction of the Government is a sina qua non and

no Magistrate can take cognizance unless sanction order is

produced.

9. In the present case, the allegation against applicant is

that he has circulated the message in WhatsApp group of School

staff. The contents of the message was circulated in between the

members of WhatsApp group only. As such, it is the submission of

applicant that ingredient of Section 295-A are not attracted in the

matter. Hence, no offence is made out against him in the matter.

10. Learned Counsel appearing for non-applicant No.2 has

strongly opposed the application stating that forwarding a message

on a mobile, which is having school group, this forward was came

to be knowledge of various persons and as all members were of the

same opinion, the non-applicant No.2 came forward and lodged the

complaint, hence, it cannot be said that the offence is not made out

against the present applicant. Hence, he prayed that this Court

should not interfere at this stage of this matter and in case, the

Government grants sanction to the prosecution, then the case can

be prosecuted against the present applicant. He further stated that

on the directions of the Education Officer Secondary, Zilla Parishad,

Bhandara, he has lodged this complaint and, therefore, this aspect

needs consideration in the matter.

11. It is a settled position of law as laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manoj Rai and others Vs.

State of Madhya Pradesh in 1991 (1) SCC 728, that in absence of

sanction under Section 196(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the

proceedings under Section 295-A are not tenable and same deserves

to be quashed and set aside. Hence, considering the law laid down

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, prima facie, in view of

absence of sanction under Section 196(1) the entire prosecution

stands quashed on this sole ground.

12. In light of this legal position, I have considered the

submission which was advanced by the applicant as well as learned

APP in the matter. The learned APP has placed on record the

communication from non-application No.1 dated 01.06.2016 and

pointed out that till date, there is no sanction received from the

State Government to initiate the Criminal Proceedings against the

present applicant. As such, on this sole ground, entire criminal

proceeding registered against the applicant are unsustainable in the

eyes of law. However, the applicant has insisted that on merits also,

there is no case made out against him and, therefore, I heard the

parties on the merits of the case also.

13. It is the submission of the applicant that there was a

message sent by applicant in the group of School staff. There are

limited members in that WhatsApp group. The said group cannot be

said to be a class of any particular religion nor all members are

annoyed or disturbed by such message forwarded by him. He has

relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case

of Pramod s/o Udeybhan Shendre Vs. The State of Maharshtra,

through Police Station Officer, Police Staton Narkhed, Dist. Nagpur

and another in Criminal Application (APL) No.1077/2023 , wherein

in paragraph No.22, this Court observed as under:

"22. The another point that cropped up is that those messages were end to end encrypted that means they could not have been seen by third person, then whether it can be gathered that the said act attracts Section 295A of the IPC. The Investigating Officer has not collected names of all the group members. It is not stated in the charge-sheet and/or FIR how many of the members of Muslims. Only four witnesses and one informant cannot be counted as 'class' as contemplated in Section 295A of the IPC. We are of the opinion that the offence under Section 295A of the IPC is not transpiring from the contents of the FIR, together with the material collected in the charge-sheet."

14. In the present case also nothing came on record that

how many members in the group and whether such limited

members can be counted as a class as contemplated under Section

295A of the Indian Penal Code. So also, it cannot be gathered from

the complaint of non-applicant No.2 that due to the message of

applicant, any enmity between different groups or prejudice

harmony between different groups or class of society. Hence, no

offence is attracted either under Section 295-A or Section 153-A of

the Indian Penal Code.

15. In light of above fact and circumstances of the case,

and the allegations, which are leveled against the present applicant,

which he has forwarded, the sentiment of class of citizens are not