SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 10495

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK

ON THE 13th OF DECEMBER, 2023

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO. 54223 of 2023

BETWEEN:-

MONU UPADHYAY S/O SHRI SANTOSH

UPADHYAY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O

BEEJASEN ROAD LAHAR DISTRICT BHIND

(MADHYA PRADESH)

…..PETITIONER

(BY SHRI GAURAV MISHRA - ADVOCATE)

AND

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE

STATION LAHAR DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA

PRADESH)

…..RESPONDENT

(BY SHRI RAJEEV UPADHYAY - ADVOCATE)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This application coming on for admission this day, the court

passed the following:

Advocates:
Jai Prakash Mishra,Advocate General

Freedom of speech and expression includes the right to express opinions that are critical of the government, even if those opinions are controversial or unpopular.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL LAW - QUASHING OF FIR - FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION - [SECTION 505(2) AND 188 OF IPC] - Petitioner's social media post expressing doubt about the fairness of an election does not constitute an offence under Section 505(2) of IPC (promoting enmity between different classes) or Section 188 of IPC (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant).

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a correspondent, made a social media post expressing doubt about the fairness of an election in his constituency. The post was deemed derogatory and a case was registered against him under Sections 505(2) and 188 of IPC.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner's post did not constitute an offence under Section 505(2) of IPC as it did not promote enmity between different classes. It also held that the FIR was not maintainable under Section 188 of IPC as the petitioner had not disobeyed any order duly promulgated by a public servant.

Issues: Whether the petitioner's social media post constituted an offence under Section 505(2) of IPC (promoting enmity between different classes). Whether the FIR was maintainable under Section 188 of IPC (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant).

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles:- Freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.- Section 505(2) of IPC requires that the speech or expression must promote enmity between different classes of society.- Section 188 of IPC requires that the disobedience must be to an order duly promulgated by a public servant.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR registered against the petitioner.

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

2

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

3

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:

"भण लहर चनव बकग लहर ववधन स म आगम चनव

4

हत भनवचन दर लहर ववधन स म बनय गय पक न#

रज एच- बगट (vkbZ-,-,l-) भनष(क एव य मक मत#न रन

म ह* नम यत गमण मत#तय- न कहममत र पशसन

0 ज भशयत (त (ढन उ(रत पशसन न सध चप( और

त0 और स6चन (हच पक (स त0 स6चन सजन म आन

उ(रत पक हए म8न रत भनवचन और भण पशसन

बस 9 बत नह: रह: और न ह: ह0 सत ह*।^^

Perusal of aforesaid quotation clearly indicates that on the

basis of sa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top