ORDER :

1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is preferred by the petitioner seeking quashment of the FIR registered at crime No.290/2023 at Police Station Lahar District Bhind for the offence under Sections 505(2) and 188 of IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner who is a correspondent made a post on the social media raising doubt in relation to conduct of free and fair election in Lahar Legislative Assembly Constituency. Treating the said post of the petitioner as derogatory and public mischief, FIR got registered by Naib Tahsildar, Lahar against the petitioner and another person for commission of offence under Sections 505(2) and 188 of IPC.

3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that since there was no order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to abstain from a certain act, which has been disobeyed by the petitioner, therefore, no offence under Section 188 of IPC is made out. Further petitioner is a correspondent and he being part of Fourth Pillar of the Democracy, expressed his opinion on the social media for which he is empowered under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that if the allegations are taken as true then also no case for offence under Section 505(2) and 188 of IPC is made out against the petitioner. Since the post was in relation to an IAS officer, therefore, in a very haste manner, the FIR has been registered against the petitioner. To bolster his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Kedar Nath Singh Vs. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 955 and Amish Devgun Vs. Union of India, (2021) 1 SCC 1. Thus, prayed for quashing of the aforesaid FIR registered against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that petitioner tried to disturb the public peace during the period of Model Code of Conduct and the act of the petitioner amounts to disregard to the order of a public officer and public mischief, therefore, rightly the case has been registered against the petitioner. It is further submitted that only trial will unfold the truth and petitioner has to prove his innocence before the trial Court.

5. Heard.

6. Freedom of speech is one of the core pillars upholding the Constitutional Spirit and democratic process and thus protection of it is essential. Free speech exists when citizenry can express its opinion including views that are critical towards the government without fearing backlash, such as being put into prison or receiving threats of violence. Democracy’s goal is to have a plural and tolerant society. For this to happen successfully, citizenry should be able to speak freely and openly about how they would like to be governed. This exchange of ideas and opinions is not just a once off on election day, rather it is an on-going two-way communication which happens throughout a Government’s term. Although certain exceptions are enumerated in Article 19 of the Constitution, but it must satisfy the contingencies contained therein.

7. This is a case where petitioner is seeking quashment of FIR emanated from his social media post wherein he has raised doubt about conducting free and fair election in Lahar Legislative Assembly Constituency. Petitioner by profession is a correspondent and the relevant part of his social media post is being quoted as under:

Perusal of aforesaid quotation clearly indicates that on the basis of said post, petitioner cannot be saddled with the allegations of promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between different classes of the society or causing any public mischief.

8. Article 19 of the Constitution provides Freedom of Speech and Expression and if the post allegedly made by the petitioner is taken into consideration, then from the said post no derogatory comment or public mischief is reflected. Conducting free and fair elections in the Leg