The court established that social media posts questioning the army's credibility did not meet the legal threshold for incitement, reinforcing the necessity for a preliminary inquiry before FIR registration.

ORAL ORDER

1) By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR being C. R. No. 11201018250021 of 2025 registered with CID Cyber Crime Police Station, Dist. Gandhinagar, for the offence under Sections 152 and 353(1)(a) of the BNS and other consequential proceedings, if any, arising therefrom.

2) Heard Mr. Hriday Buch, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Dhruvik Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rohan Shah, ld. APP for the respondent State.

3) It is the case of the prosecution that while Police Inspector of Cyber Crime Cell, monitoring various social media platforms, he came across a Facebook page under the name “Rajesh Soni – Delegate AICC – General Secretary, Gujarat Congress, which according to the complainant, was found to have published multiple posts that were allegedly misleading and anti-social. It is further alleged that, one of the posts questioned the credibility and commitment of the Indian Army during a military operation titled as “Operation Sindoor”, which according to the complainant, could potentially shake the faith of the general public in the Armed forces. In this regard, the FIR has been lodged against the accused including the present petitioner.

4) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, and the FIR has been registered solely with the intent to harass him, driven by malafide intentions. The petitioner has not indulged in any illegal activity that falls within the purview of Sections 152 and 353(1)(A) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS ). The petitioner merely reposted content that he had received from another source. There was no malafide intention on his part, and even otherwise, the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 152 and 353 (1)(a) of the BNS are not satisfied. No statement was made by the petitioner that amounts to public mischief, or that incites or attempts to incite secession, armed rebellion, or any subversive activity. No any material which suggest any violation, disruption or institutional disobedience, nor any direct or indirect act which interfere with the military operations or public servants’ duties. It is further submitted that, no any adverse impact subsequent to the impugned posts been noticed. Hence, based on alleged false posts or rumor, the complainant has filed the impugned FIR to win the cheaper popularity. It is not a case where due to the posts made by the petitioner affect the dedication of armed forces or any other government servant/s. The petitioner has neither waged war nor attempted to breach the peace of the country. Prima facie, it appears that at this stage, the comment made by the petitioner does not fall within the scope of the alleged offences. It is further submitted that, the petitioner was already arrested and produced before the Magistrate concerned, but no remand was sought for as per the say of the accused. Even other videos and parody in writing are also available on the social media platforms itself. Hence, registration of FIR is nothing, but a gross abuse of the process of law. Therefore, he requested to stay further proceedings of impugned FIR.

5) Per contra, learned APP appearing for the respondent State has opposed the present application and contended that it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner has made posts on social media which are misleading and anti-social in nature. The petitioner has posted several messages on social media platforms that involve the dissemination and circulation of false statements, rumors, or reports, particularly those intended to cause public unrest, spread fear, or incite offences against the State or public tranquility. Therefore, prima facie, the offences under Sections 152 and 3