Point of Law: FIR quashed - Through Facebook ID, posted objectionable material - Religious sentiments - Petitioner has shared post of other person, even, contents of FIR does not, prima facie, establish alleged offences mentioned in FIR, therefore FIR quashed.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging registration of FIR No. 0171 dated 15.04.2020 (Annexure P/3) registered against her at Police Station – Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) for committing offence punishable under Sections 153-A, 295-A, 505 (2) & 188 of I.P.C.

2. The brief facts as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner is a practicing lawyer at Raipur. Respondent No. 4 lodged an FIR against the petitioner on 15.04.2020 alleging that the petitioner in her Facebook ID, posted objectionable material on 4th, 5th & 7th April, 2020 because of which, religious sentiments of complainant/ respondent No. 4 have been hurt. Therefore, respondent No. 4 has got registered FIR No. 171/2020 against the petitioner for committing offence punishable under Sections 153-A, 295-A, 505 (2) & 188 of I.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had filed a written complaint on 11.05.2019 at Police Station-Pandri, District-Raipur (C.G.) against one Nand Kumar Baghel, who is father of present Hon’ble the Chief Minister of the State alleging that Nand Kumar Baghel has used derogatory remark against Lord Shri Ram and also abused Lord Ganesha, therefore, FIR has been lodged by respondent No. 4 against the petitioner with ulterior motive adopting pressure tactics as counter blast to take vengeance by the respondent. He would further submit that the petitioner has not written the original post, she had simply shared the post written by one Rudra Anish. He would further submit that no abusive language has been used by the petitioner, which hurts sentiments of any of the religious, hence, it is prayed that the FIR registered against the petitioner may kindly be quashed.

4. Learned State counsel has filed their return, in which, they have contended that since the complaint discloses the prima facie commission of cognizable offence by the petitioner, the authorities are duty bound to register FIR against the petitioner. During investigation, the police recorded statement of complainant/ respondent No. 4 as well as the witnesses namely Saiyyad Sidique Ali, Shahid Iqbal, Mohd. Sajid Khan & Ashraf Khan. He would submit that the Police has written a letter to Cyber Cell for providing information regarding authenticity of the Facebook profile of the petitioner. The Cyber Cell has contacted the Facebook company, who informed that as per law of United States of America, the document of Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty Request or letter rogatory is necessary for providing the information, but the same has not been provided to them by Facebook Company.

5. Learned State counsel would further submit that the petitioner has not provided certificate under Section 65 (B) of the Indian Evidence Act. The petitioner is not assisting in the investigation, which is under progress and it is in primary stage. Looking to the allegation made against the petitioner, present is not a fit case, where extraordinary jurisdiction may be exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, it is prayed that this writ petition may kindly be dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has also filed return, in which, it has been stated that the petitioner has not only deliberately made objectionable post, which hurts sentiments of the communities at large. The petitioner has not only used such material on her status, but she has tagged it with several other persons as well, which amounts to promotion of such illegal activity and it is constituting an offence under the aforesaid Sections. Therefore, the offence alleged in the FIR is made out against the petitioner. The FIR registered against the petitioner is made out on the basis of complaint made by respondent No. 4 and the investigation is under progress and it is in primary stage, which cannot be quashed at this juncture. Hence, it is prayed that this writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly