The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, quashed criminal proceedings against the applicant, Dnyaneshwar Rohidas Wakale, who had forwarded an objectionable post in a WhatsApp group. The court held that the investigation was flawed, failing to trace the origin of the post or establish intent to defame or incite enmity. Additionally, procedural errors, such as the lack of sanction under Section 196 of CrPC and improper application of the Atrocities Act, led to the quashing of the charges.

Para 1 - Nature of the Application:

• The applicant sought to quash the criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 295-A and 153-A of the IPC and Section 3(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
• The offense involved an offensive WhatsApp post concerning Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar.

Para 3 - Applicant's Submission:

• The applicant did not create the post but forwarded it inadvertently.
• The applicant apologized immediately after realizing the nature of the content.
• The police failed to investigate the source of the post, which had been forwarded by multiple individuals.
• The ingredients of the charged offenses were not met.

Para 4 - Opposition from Respondents:

• The prosecution argued that the post intended to defame Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, which could harm social harmony.
• The content of the post, showing a person urinating on Ambedkar's photograph, was offensive to the community and warranted criminal charges.

Para 5 - Deficiency in Investigation:

• The investigation did not establish who created the post or who allowed it to spread beyond the WhatsApp group.
• Statements from key individuals who forwarded the post were not taken.
• The court found no proof that the applicant had malicious intent.

Para 7-8 - Case Law Support:

• The court referred to Priya Prakash Varrier vs. State of Telangana and Mahendra Singh Dhoni vs. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar, where it was held that malicious intent is necessary for offenses under Section 295-A of IPC.
• Similar observations were made regarding the absence of intent to promote enmity under Section 153-A IPC.

Para 9-10 - Procedural Flaws:

• No proper sanction under Section 196 of CrPC was obtained before taking cognizance of the offenses under Sections 295-A and 153-A IPC.
• The cognizance taken by the Special Judge was therefore illegal.
• The court expressed concerns over the lack of proper procedure in securing sanctions.

Para 11 - Observations on District Judiciary:

• The court criticized the mechanical handling of cases by District Judiciary and highlighted the need for proper adherence to Sections 195, 196, 197, and 198 of CrPC.

Para 12-13 - Broader Implications:

• The court emphasized the importance of exercising caution while using social media platforms and forwarding messages without understanding the content's implications.
• It noted that every forward does not amount to promoting enmity or hatred unless there is clear intent.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Section 295-A IPC – Punishment for deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
2. Section 153-A IPC – Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc.
3. Section 3(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Punishment for offenses committed against members of Scheduled Castes or Tribes.
4. Section 482 CrPC – Inherent powers of the High Court to quash proceedings.
5. Section 196 CrPC – Prosecution for offenses against the State, such as Sections 153-A and 295-A IPC, requiring prior sanction from the government.

Ratio Decidendi:

The High Court held that for an offense under Sections 153-A and 295-A IPC, malicious intent is essential. In the absence of proper investigation into the source of the post and the lack of any deliberate intent by the applicant, the criminal proceedings were unjustified. Furthermore, procedural flaws, such as the absence of a valid sanction under Section 196 CrPC, rendered the prosecution unsustainable.

Subjects:

• WhatsApp Forward
• Defamation of Religious Figures
• Section 482 CrPC
• Procedural Irregularities
• SC/ST Act
• Social Media Offenses