Back
Allahabad HC: Remarks Alleging Govt Conspiracy in Atiq Killing Can't Be Quashed Yet
In a ruling that balances free speech against threats to public order, the has dismissed an application by Noor Ahmad Ajahri, State President of the , seeking to quash criminal proceedings against him. Justice Saurabh Srivastava held that allegations of his video statements promoting enmity under disclose a , refusing to intervene at this preliminary stage.
From TV Debate to Police Station: The Spark
The controversy ignited in
when a video surfaced on the mobile of
's Incharge Inspector. In it, Ajahri commented on the high-profile killing of gangster Atiq Ahmed and his brother Ashraf in Prayagraj custody. He accused the BJP-led Uttar Pradesh government under Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath of orchestrating the murders to intimidate Muslims, claiming the state lacked faith in the Constitution and had
"trampled it into the ground."
This prompted FIR No. 206 of 2023 at Pilibhit's Puranpur station, initially under Sections 153A (promoting enmity between groups) and 295A IPC (outraging religious feelings). Investigation, including witness statements, led to a chargesheet on , solely under . On , the , took cognizance in Special Case No. 13275 of 2023, summoning Ajahri. He challenged this via application under (equivalent to ) in Allahabad HC.
Petitioner's Plea: Protected Opinion, Not Incitement
Ajahri's counsel, and , argued the statements were mere expressions of opinion during a TV debate representing the . They claimed no words fell under , which targets statements likely to promote enmity on religious grounds. Alleging a hasty chargesheet without fair probe and mechanical cognizance, they called it an warranting quashing.
State's Counter: Sufficient Grounds, No Trial Now
countered that contentions involved disputed facts needing evidence appreciation—unsuitable at this juncture. Emphasizing cognizance requires only a prima facie view, not a "," he urged the court to let proceedings continue.
Weighing Words: Court's Sharp Legal Lens
Justice Srivastava zeroed in on whether the FIR allegations fit
, which punishes statements or rumors
"with intent to create or promote... feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious... groups."
The FIR accused Ajahri of inciting
"religious frenzy and communal sentiments"
among Muslims, fostering hostility, hatred toward the government, and risks of riots disrupting peace.
Rejecting quashing, the court invoked Supreme Court precedents. In
S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar
(2002) 1 SCC 241, it stressed the test is "sufficient ground for proceeding," not conviction.
Nupur Talwar v. CBI
(2012) 11 SCC 465 reinforced that magistrates assess if material suffices
"for proceeding against the accused,"
not proving guilt.
As media reports noted, the bench observed:
"at this stage, it cannot be said that prima facie, no case is made,"
highlighting police claims of potential communal hostility.
Key Observations
"The only question which arises in this case is whether the act of applicant as alleged through narration of the FIR comes under the ambit of offence mentioned in or not?"(Para 7)
"By bare perusal of the narrations made in the FIR wherein it has been mentioned that applicant is accused of spreading religious excitement and communal feelings among a particular community which has the effect of creating hostility among people... at this stage, it cannot be said that prima facie, no case is made."(Para 9)
"At the stage of taking cognizance/summoning, the Magistrate is only required to record a , based on the material on record, and is not expected to hold a or to examine the defence of the accused."(Para 10)
No Relief, But Trial Awaits Merits
The order dismissed the application as "devoid of merit," clarifying observations are prima facie and do not prejudice the trial. Proceedings in Pilibhit continue, where full evidence will test if Ajahri's words crossed into criminal territory. This underscores judicial caution in hate speech cases, prioritizing public tranquility over early dismissal amid sensitive communal dynamics.
