Point of Law: Mens rea is an essential ingredient of offence under Section 505 RPC and as it provides a reasonable restriction on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression therefore the same is required to be strictly construed.

JUDGMENT :

RAJNESH OSWAL, J.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 561-A Cr.P.C. (now 482) for quashing FIR bearing No. 49/2018 dated 21.05.2018 for commission of offence under section 505 RPC registered with Police Station, Pampore, Kashmir.

2. It is stated that the petitioner has been teaching as an adjunct faculty at Indian Institute of Mass Communication at New Delhi for the last twenty years and is a respected member of the society, having clean record and antecedents. It is further stated that the petitioner is an alumnus of the University of Delhi and Jawahar Lal Nehru University and is often invited by numerous universities and colleges, across India for lectures on the history of Kashmir and comments on the current political affairs of India in general and the State of Jammu and Kashmir (now UT) in particular. The petitioner claims to be a familiar face on almost all news channels for panel-discussions and debates on the current affairs and the prevailing security scenario in Kashmir. It is also stated that he has constantly stood by India security forces in their role as the defenders of borders against the external enemies and supported their needs for a free hand to deal with the day to day challenges on the borders. It is further stated that in all his lectures/discussions/debates, the petitioner highlights the unfair disadvantages, brave jawans are subjected to, for political expedience and staunchly advocates against the concessions to the separatists in the State of Jammu and Kashmir (Now UT) and because of his ideology, the petitioner is hated by number of politicians and separatists.

3. It is further stated that on 21.05.2018, at about 10 AM, a seminar was hosted by Ms. Seema Mustafa on the issue of Kashmir in India International Center, New Delhi. The speakers included Wajahat Habibullah (Retd. Bureaucrat), Siddiq Wahid (Ex. Vice chancellor), Mohd. Yosuf Tarigami (Ex-MLA), Kapil Kak (Air Vice Marshal, Retd.) Gauhar Geelani (Journalist) and several other politicians and activists from Jammu and Kashmir.

4. During the course of this seminar, in the afternoon, one speaker, Sh. Tauseef Raina, while addressing the seminar, paused for a moment to look at his mobile phone and then said “As I am speaking, 5 CRPF jawans are killed in Pampore” and thereafter resumed his address. The petitioner tweeted from his twitter handle with regard to the killing of 5 CRPF jawans. It is stated that after a couple of hours, a friend of the petitioner from Jammu and Kashmir, called him on his mobile phone and informed him that the tweet was posted by him was, in fact merely a rumor and advised the petitioner to delete the same and on coming to know that it was just a rumor, the petitioner deleted his tweet at about 2.30 P.M. It is submitted that the petitioner was not aware that his accidental tweet was probably saved by some persons who would later on use it for their political end to harass the petitioner. It is also stated that after sometime while the petitioner was checking his twitter, he was surprised to see that the Ex-Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir who used the tweet of the petitioner as prop on his own tweet, tweeted a fresh tweet. It is further stated that the said Ex-Chief Minister gave the intentional communal meaning to the tweet of the petitioner and if the tweet of the petitioner is taken on its face value to be true, it does not carry any communal inflammatory language, which can create or spread communal hatred between two religious communities.

5. It is averred that SHO Police Station, Pampore, respondent No. 2 herein, under some political pressure or out of the pressure created by Ex-Chief Minister's tweet, lodged FIR under section 505 RPC against the petitioner, which is impugned in the instant petition.

6. The petitioner has sought quashing of the said FIR primarily on the ground that the FIR does not disclose commission of any offence including the offence under section 505 RPC. The pe