##PAGE1##

2026:BHC-A S:43573-DB CNR No : HCBM010290132025 Ajay IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 598 OF 2025 Khadeejah Shahabuddin Shaikh .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents ....................

 Ms. Farhana Shah a/w. Mr. Omar Shah and Ms. Amna Khan, Advocates for Applicant.

 Mr. Amit A Palkar, APP for Respondent – State.

......…...........

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

DATE : OCTOBER 27, 2026.

P.C.:

1. Heard Ms. Shah, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr.

Palkar, learned APP for Respondent - State.

2. The present Criminal Application is filed to quash the FIR No.380 of 2025 dated 09.05.2025 lodged with Kondhwa Police Station against Applicant for offences punishable under Sections 152, 196, 197, 29, 352 and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. It is prosecution case that on 07.05.2025, while Complainant who is a Police Hawaldar was monitoring social media on his patrolling duty came across a social media post which was re-posted by Applicant on her Instagram Account with regard to the war between India and Pakistan fomenting objectionable religious sentiments having communal overtone and may have caused tension and affected public peace. Hence, the said FIR was lodged against Applicant.

4. Ms. Shah learned Advocate for Applicant Learned Advocate for the Applicant would submit that the Applicant had merely re- posted the content which had already been published by another person and was not the author of the original post. The Applicant re- posted the contentious post on 07.05.2025 and consciously deleted the same within two hours on the very same day. She had also publicly expressed remorse and tendered an apology. She would submit that despite the immediate deletion of the post and the apology, the FIR came to be registered on 09.05.2025 and Applicant was arrested on the same day.

4.1. She would submit that even if the contents of the post were capable of creating apprehension of disturbance between religious communities, at first glance the FIR does not disclose any substantial material demonstrating the requisite criminal intention or knowledge on the part of Applicant. She would submit that no actual incident of communal disturbance has been brought to the notice because of the post. She would submit that Applicant is a young Engineering student with no criminal antecedents and a bright future. She would submit that continuation of the criminal proceedings would affect the career of the Applicant and her future prospects and therefore prays for the FIR to be quashed with directions deemed fit by the Court considering the age of Applicant and her future.

5. Mr. Palkar, learned Advocate for Respondent – State would submit that the content re-posted by Applicant was capable of hurting religious sentiments and disturbing communal harmony between two religious groups. He would submit that the fact that Applicant was not the original author of the post would not absolve her of liability, as re- posting the content also amounts to public exposure. He would submit that deletion of the post and tendering of an apology would not automatically extinguish criminal liability if the requisite ingredients of the offences are otherwise prima facie established. He would therefore oppose the Application and submit that Application for quashing on merits be dismissed.

6. I have heard Ms. Shah, learned Advocate for Applicant, Mr. Palkar, learned APP for Respondent - State at length and with their able assistance perused the record of the case. Submissions made by learned Advocates at the bar have received due consideration of the Court.

7. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that Applicant is not the author or creator of the original post. The post is undoubtedly contentious arousing passion and hatred. Her role is confined to re- posting the said post which was already available on the social media platform. The material plac