Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S.GADKARI, RAJESH S.PATIL
Farah Deeba – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the fir and allegations (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. petition seeks quashing based on insufficient allegations. (Para 2) |
| 3. arguments regarding mental state and fir merits (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court observations on evidence and intent (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. notice under procedural law and the petitioner's response (Para 11) |
| 6. legal precedence and procedural context of quashing (Para 12) |
| 7. principles from supreme court on freedom of speech limits (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 8. conclusion based on the fir contents and legal principles (Para 16) |
| 9. final dismissal of the petition (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT :
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 al
The court denied the quashing of the FIR, asserting prima facie evidence of crimes against the petitioner under the BNS 2023, emphasizing the necessity of ongoing investigations.
The court held that the intent behind tweets must be assessed carefully, and freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions to maintain public order and national integrity.
Freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) when it risks public order and national integrity.
The court quashed proceedings against the accused as allegations did not prima facie constitute an offence under the relevant sections of law.
The High Court quashed the FIR under Sections 125 of the Representation of the People Act and 504 IPC due to insufficient evidence for promoting enmity or intentionally provoking a breach of peace.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
