Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Del) 33660
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DR. RATAN LAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. – Respondent
CRL.M.C.-7336/2023
Freedom of speech has inherent limitations to maintain public order and communal harmony; intent to disrupt peace is crucial for prosecution under Sections 153A and 295A.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528; Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 153A and 295A - Quashing of FIR - Petitioner, an academic, tweeted regarding 'Shiva Linga' at Gyanvapi Mosque, leading to FIR for promoting enmity and hurting religious sentiments - Court finds no merit in claim of malicious prosecution, upholding need for reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech to maintain social harmony. (Paras 1, 6, 30, 46)
(B) Freedom of Speech - Not absolute - Must be balanced with maintenance of public order and harmony; intent to disturb peace a necessary element for prosecution under Sections 153A and 295A - The Court reinforces this principle while ruling against petitioner's claim. (Paras 45, 48)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner's complaint for quashing an FIR for tweeting content regarding a religious structure was dismissed. The petitioner argued no unrest occurred post his comments, while the opposition claimed the comments incited hatred.
Findings of Court:
No case for quashing as the petitioner’s actions were deemed to have potential for communal disharmony and disrespect to religious beliefs.
Issues: Whether the FIR constituted a misuse of law and if the tweet constituted an offence under Sections 153A and 295A of IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the necessity of intention in assessing claims under Sections 153A and 295A while reiterating the necessity of balancing freedom of expression with public interest.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for quashing an fir (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on legality of fir under ipc (Para 3 , 6 , 10) |
| 3. intent required for criminal charges under ipc (Para 12 , 14 , 20 , 39) |
| 4. mens rea and public order considerations (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 41) |
| 5. final dismissal of petition (Para 46 , 48) |
ORDER
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)
1. The instant petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNSS”) [earlier Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC”)] has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking quashing of the FIR No.50/2022, registered at Police Station North Cyber Crime, Maurice Nagar, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code, 1960 (hereinafter “IPC”).
2. The brief facts that led to the filing of the present petition are as follows:
a) The petitioner is an Assistant Professor of History at Hindu College, University of Delhi, with over two decades of teaching experience. On 14th May, 2022, the petitioner made a tweet via his Twitter handle @ratanlal72 on Twitter (now known as „X‟) and made a post on his Facebook account regarding the presence of the „Shiva Linga‟ like structure found in the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. The said tweet/post reads as “Yadi yeh Shiv Ling hai to Lagta hai shayad Shiv ji ka bhi khatna kar diya gaya tha”
b) Based on the aforesaid tweet/post, the complainant namely Mr. Shiwal Bhalla filed a complaint which led to the registration of FIR No.50/2022, dated 18th May, 2022 against the petitioner herein, under Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at PS Cyber Police Station, North, Maurice Nagar, Delhi.
c) The petitioner was arrested in relation to the aforesaid FIR on 20th May, 2022 and was granted regular bail by the Court concerned vide order dated 21st May, 2022.
d) In the meanwhile, the petitioner applied for visa for the United Kingdom, however, received an email from the British High Commission, New Delhi that verification is required from the police. Ultimately, the petitioner‟s visa was rejected. Moreover, it is stated that the on 7th July, 2023, the petitioner‟s promotion as Professor was also kept pending by the Principal stating the reason that the petitioner is an accused in the impugned FIR.
e) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner has filed instant petition seeking quashing.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed as no further investigation related to the instant case has been initiated by the concerned investigating agency. Further, no charge sheet has been submitted before the learned Trial Court till date even though the petitioner has cooperated with the police during the investigation throughout.
4. It is submitted that the post in question is regarding the “Shiva Linga” which was unearthed from the Gyanwapi Mosque at Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh and the contents made in the tweet and the Facebook post were made by the petitioner with all the sense of responsibility as a historian.
5. It is further submitted that while making the post on Twitter as well as on Facebook, the petitioner had no intention to hurt the religious sentiments of any person or group of persons rather the same was made by the petitioner as an expression of thought in view of the other tweets and images which were already on various social media platforms.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on a plain reading of the FIR, no case is made out against the petitioner under Sections 153A and 295A of the IPC as after the said tweet and post on Twitter and Facebook respectively, neither any unrest happened in the society nor the harmony of the society was disturbed which are the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the said provisions.
7. It is further submitted that the police had arrested the petitioner without serving him notice a under Section 41-A of th
