Judgment & Order

(Dr.T. Amarnath Goud, J)

Both the writ petitions have been taken up together for disposal by a common judgment and order since common questions of law and facts are involved in the matters.

2. The writ petitions are filed by the petitioner under Section 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction for quashing the FIR relating to East Agartala PS case No. 2025EAG108 and West Agartala PS case No. 2025WAG113, registered under Sections 356(2),356,356(3) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 67 of IT Act, 2000 and also for quashing the charge-sheets dated 29.12.2025 and 31.12.2025.

3. On the basis of a complaint lodged by the complainants, FIRs had been registered against the petitioner, who is allegedly a content creator. In the FIR it was alleged that the petitioner used abusive, derogatory and criticizing language to malign the Prime Minister of India. In the complaint it was further alleged that the petitioner has used unwanted words regarding the Mayor of Agartala as well as Mata Tripureshwari. The petitioner was arrested in connection with the alleged incident, and subsequently she was released on interim bail by order of this Court dated 07.01.2026. Charge sheet was submitted in both the cases. A prayer for custodial interrogation was also filed by respondent No.2, which was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 27.01.2026 and vide order dated 13.02.2026, the petitioner was enlarged on permanent bail. Thereafter, complaints were again lodged by the complainants therein alleging inter alia that the petitioner after being enlarged on bail has been threatening the complainant to withdraw the complaint. It is further case of the petitioner that on 15.04.2026 she lodged a written complaint with the respondent no.2 with a complaint that her house has been ransacked and she and her son were brutally assaulted. It is the further grievance of the petitioner that since the complaint lodged by the complainant does not disclose any cognizable offence, the same i.e. the FIR and the charge sheet, are liable to be quashed and cancelled.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

5. Learned senior counsel Mr. P. Roy Barman, for the petitioner has submitted that from the face of the complaint there is no ingredients of Section 356, 356(2),356(3) of BNS. He has also submitted that the petitioner has only expressed her opinion and at no point of time she has made any defamatory statements against the PM or Mayor or Mata Tripureswari. Learned senior counsel has also submitted that the complaint is made out of political grudge indicating the petitioner belonging from a particular political party. He has also submitted that all the statements made by the witnesses in their 180 BNSS are omnibus statements and no ingredient of defamation could be established. He has also argued that since Section 356(2) has not been established thus section 67 of IT Act has no role in the instant case. Mr. Roy Barman, has further submitted that relating to the instant incident the house of the petitioner was ransacked and she and her son were assaulted brutally, but her complaint was not registered despite without any material evidence, FIR has been lodged against the petitioner. He has also submitted that the contents of the FIR do not disclose any cognizable offence hence the same is liable to be quashed. He has also submitted that no specific statements have been made against the PM or Mayor or Mata Tripureshwari so as to constitute any offence under Section 356 of BNS. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that the entire case is based on political vengeance. Learned senior counsel also pointed out that the investigation performed by the respondent No.2 is perfunctory and politically motivated and the subsequent charge-sheet filed therein inherits those flaws, which has been filed without pointing to precise evidence, acti