Reserved on 21.08.2025 Delivered on 29.08.2025

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT

NAINITAL

Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 511 of 2023

Bhagwati Prasad Purohit .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others …..Respondents

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

Presence:-

Mr. Abhay Kant Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner.

Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned A.G.A. for the State.

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

Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned F.I.R. No. 0009 of 2023 dated 18.02.2023 registered at the Gopeshwar Police Station, Chamoli, Uttarakhand, for the offence punishable under Sections 153A & 469 of IPC read with Section 3(1)(u) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and further to direct the respondent nos.1 & 2 not to

harass the petitioner in view of the abovementioned F.I.R..

2. An FIR bearing No. 0009 of 2023 was registered at Police Station Gopeshwar, District Chamoli, on 18 February 2023, upon the complaint of one Pushkar Singh Rana. In the complaint, it was alleged that certain derogatory and objectionable material concerning the Bhotia community and members of the Scheduled Castes was created and circulated through social media platforms.

3. The language of the impugned article, as noted in the FIR and subsequently reproduced in the bail proceedings, imputed immorality and illegitimacy to the Bhotia community and contained disparaging references to Dalits. The petitioner, Bhagwati Prasad Purohit, was named as the individual responsible for the authorship and circulation of the said article.

4. Following the registration of the FIR, the petitioner was arrested by the police. He later approached the Special Sessions Judge, Chamoli, seeking bail. By order dated 14 March 2023, the learned Special Sessions Judge granted bail to the petitioner on the ground that at that stage of the investigation, there was no conclusive material to demonstrate that the petitioner had personally posted or circulated the impugned content on his own social media account. The order also observed that multiple Facebook accounts existed in the name of the petitioner and that the posts had appeared on the walls of other individuals.

5. In the course of investigation, the police claimed to have gathered electronic evidence linking the petitioner to the impugned article. According to the counter-affidavit filed before this Court, forensic examination indicated that the article was drafted on a notepad application associated with the petitioner’s mobile phone and thereafter shared through his WhatsApp account. The counter-affidavit further discloses that requests have been made to Facebook for additional information to establish the origin of the posts. The investigating agency has also noted that while other individuals named in the complaint responded to notices under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and cooperated with the investigation, the petitioner did not comply in the same manner.

6. At the time of hearing before this Court, the petitioner has sought the quashing of the FIR on the ground that the allegations do not make out the offences alleged and that his arrest and prosecution are unwarranted. The State, on the other hand, maintains that the FIR discloses cognizable offences, that investigation has revealed evidence of the petitioner’s involvement, and that further steps in the investigation are still underway.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR, even if accepted in its entirety, does not disclose the commission of any offence against the petitioner. It is urged that the allegation that the petitioner authored or circulated the impugned article on Facebook is wholly unsubstantiated. The objectionable material, as recor