Case Note & Summary
The applicants filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of FIR No.73 of 2016 registered at Vazirabad Police Station, Nanded, for the offence punishable under Section 295A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was lodged by Respondent No.2, Ganesh Pensalwar, alleging that the applicants posted a photograph of Lord Parshuram alongside a photograph of a character named 'Parshya' from the movie 'Sairat' on Facebook, with a question asking readers which one they liked. The first informant also alleged that the applicants made derogatory comments about Lord Parshuram. The court examined the contents of the FIR and the investigation papers. It noted that the post was made on the occasion of Lord Parshuram's Jayanti and merely asked a question comparing the deity with a movie character. The court found that there was no deliberate or malicious intention to outrage religious feelings, which is an essential ingredient of Section 295A IPC. The court also observed that the other applicants merely 'liked' the post or made comments, which did not constitute abetment or common intention under Section 34 IPC. The court held that the FIR did not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offence and quashed the same to prevent abuse of process of court. The application was allowed, and the FIR was quashed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Offence under Section 295A IPC - Deliberate and Malicious Intention - The essential ingredient of Section 295A IPC is deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings of any class of citizens. Mere comparison of a deity with a movie character, without any deliberate or malicious intent, does not constitute an offence under Section 295A IPC. The court held that the post and comments did not show any deliberate or malicious intention to insult or outrage religious feelings. (Paras 5-7) B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - When the allegations in the FIR do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offence, the High Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR to prevent abuse of process of court. The court quashed FIR No.73 of 2016 registered at Vazirabad Police Station, Nanded. (Paras 8-9) C) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Section 34 IPC - Facebook 'like' and comments by co-accused do not necessarily indicate common intention to commit an offence under Section 295A IPC. The court observed that merely liking a post or making comments without any deliberate or malicious intention does not attract Section 34 IPC. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a Facebook post comparing Lord Parshuram with a movie character 'Parshya' and subsequent comments constitute an offence under Section 295A IPC read with Section 34 IPC, and whether the FIR is liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Final Decision
The court allowed the application and quashed FIR No.73 of 2016 registered at Vazirabad Police Station, Nanded, for the offence punishable under Section 295A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Law Points
- Section 295A IPC requires deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings
- mere comparison or expression of opinion without such intent is not an offence
- Facebook 'like' does not constitute abetment or common intention
- quashing under Section 482 CrPC is warranted when FIR does not disclose essential ingredients of offence
