Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Dnyaneshwar Rohidas Wakale, filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of criminal proceedings in Sessions Case No.121/2019 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. The case arose from Crime No.223/2018 registered at Khultabad Police Station for offences under Sections 295-A and 153-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 3(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The First Information Report was lodged by Fakirrao Asaram Bhalerao, who alleged that an objectionable post showing a person urinating on a photograph of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was forwarded to him via WhatsApp. The informant traced the post to a WhatsApp group named 'Only Bhau' and identified the applicant as the person who posted it. The applicant contended that he merely forwarded the post without any malicious intention and had immediately apologized on the group. He argued that the investigation failed to trace the origin of the post or obtain the CA report, and that the ingredients of the alleged offences were not attracted. The State and the informant opposed the application, arguing that the post was intended to defame Dr. Ambedkar and cause communal disharmony. The court examined the material in the charge sheet and found that the investigation was of very low standard. The court noted that the informant and his friends had also forwarded the post, but they were not made accused. The court relied on the statements of the group administrator, who stated that the applicant had apologized and deleted the post. The court also relied on precedents including Priya Prakash Varrier v. State of Telangana, Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar, and Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P., which held that for offences under Sections 295-A and 153-A IPC, deliberate and malicious intention is essential. The court concluded that there was no evidence of such intention on the part of the applicant, and the poor investigation could not justify forcing him to face trial. Accordingly, the court allowed the application and quashed the criminal proceedings.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC - Inherent Powers - The court examined whether criminal proceedings could be quashed when the applicant merely forwarded an objectionable WhatsApp post without any deliberate or malicious intention. The court held that where the investigation fails to trace the origin of the post and there is no evidence of mens rea, continuing prosecution would be an abuse of process. (Paras 1-8) B) Indian Penal Code - Offences against Religion - Section 295-A - Deliberate and Malicious Intention - The court considered the requirement of deliberate and malicious intention for an offence under Section 295-A IPC. Relying on Priya Prakash Varrier and Mahendra Singh Dhoni, the court held that insult offered unwittingly without deliberate or malicious intention does not attract Section 295-A. (Paras 7-7.1) C) Indian Penal Code - Offences against Public Tranquillity - Section 153-A - Promoting Enmity - The court examined the ingredients of Section 153-A IPC. Relying on Bilal Ahmed Kaloo, the court held that promoting feeling of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups is a sine qua non, and mere forwarding without such intention does not constitute the offence. (Paras 7.3-8) D) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Offences - Section 3(v) - Intentional Insult - The court considered whether the applicant's act of forwarding a post amounted to intentional insult with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste. The court held that in the absence of deliberate or malicious intention, the offence under Section 3(v) is not attracted. (Paras 1-8) E) Criminal Procedure - Investigation - Electronic Evidence - Poor Investigation - The court noted that the investigation was of very low standard, failing to trace the origin of the post, obtain CA report, or examine the person in the photograph. The court held that such poor investigation cannot justify forcing the applicant to face trial. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criminal proceedings against the applicant for offences under Sections 295-A, 153-A IPC and Section 3(v) of the SC/ST Act should be quashed when the applicant only forwarded an objectionable post without any deliberate or malicious intention and the investigation failed to trace the origin of the post.
Final Decision
The court allowed the application and quashed the criminal proceedings in Sessions Case No.121/2019 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, arising out of Crime No.223/2018.
Law Points
- Section 482 CrPC quashing
- lack of mens rea
- Section 295-A IPC requires deliberate and malicious intention
- Section 153-A IPC requires promoting enmity
- Section 3(v) Atrocities Act requires intentional insult
- poor investigation
- electronic evidence
- WhatsApp group
- forwarding not equivalent to creation
