Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Swidel Rodriguez, an 18-year-old student, filed a criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of FIR No. 77/2024 registered at Mapusa Police Station for offences under Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The FIR was lodged based on a complaint alleging that the petitioner posted and circulated a derogatory comment on social media regarding religious rituals performed at Shirgao Bicholim, Goa, thereby outraging the religious sentiments of the complainant and others. The petitioner had reposted a reel from 'ingoa24x7' on her private Instagram account, expressing concerns about environmental pollution caused by the ritual, and explicitly stated that there was no cause of hatred. She later issued a public apology. The court, after hearing the petitioner's counsel and the Additional Public Prosecutor, noted that the comment, taken at face value, was an expression of environmental concern and did not disclose any deliberate or malicious intention to outrage religious feelings. The court relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P. and Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar, which held that Section 295-A only penalises aggravated forms of insult to religion committed with deliberate and malicious intention. The court found that the petitioner lacked such intention and quashed the FIR.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Section 295-A IPC - Deliberate and Malicious Intention - The court held that Section 295-A IPC does not penalise every act of insult to religion but only those perpetrated with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging religious feelings. Unwitting or careless comments without such intention do not fall within the section. (Paras 9-11)
B) Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Quashing of FIR - The court exercised its writ jurisdiction to quash FIR No. 77/2024 as the petitioner's comment was an expression of environmental concern, not an insult to religion, and lacked the requisite mens rea under Section 295-A IPC. (Paras 1, 13)
C) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Inherent Powers - The court allowed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 226 to quash the FIR, relying on the principle that where the allegations do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence, the FIR is liable to be quashed. (Paras 1, 13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner's social media comment expressing environmental concerns about a religious ritual constitutes an offence under Section 295-A IPC.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. FIR No. 77/2024 dated 14.05.2024 registered at Mapusa Police Station for offences under Sections 295-A, 153 and 153A IPC is quashed and set aside.
Law Points
- Section 295-A IPC requires deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings
- unwitting or careless comments not penalised
- quashing of FIR when ingredients not met
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (10) 2507
Criminal Writ Petition No. 50 of 2024
M. S. Karnik, Valmiki Menezes
Ms. Caroline Collasso for Petitioner, Mr. Pravin Faldessai for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
The State of Goa, The Public Prosecutor, Mr. Amit Anant Gaonkar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of FIR No. 77/2024 dated 14.05.2024 registered at Mapusa Police Station for offences under Sections 295-A, 153 and 153A IPC.
Filing Reason
The petitioner, an 18-year-old student, reposted a reel on her private Instagram account expressing concerns about environmental pollution caused by a religious ritual, which was alleged to be derogatory and to have outraged religious sentiments.
Issues
Whether the petitioner's social media comment constitutes an offence under Section 295-A IPC.
Whether the FIR is liable to be quashed for lack of essential ingredients of the offence.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the comment was an expression of environmental concern without any intention to outrage religious feelings, and she had no knowledge of the religiosity aspect.
Respondent argued that the petitioner with deliberate and malicious intention insulted religious beliefs and the investigation must proceed.
Ratio Decidendi
Section 295-A IPC does not penalise every act of insult to religion but only those perpetrated with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging religious feelings. Unwitting or careless comments without such intention do not fall within the section. The petitioner's comment was an expression of environmental concern and lacked the requisite mens rea.
Judgment Excerpts
A plain reading of her comments would indicate that the same even if taken at its face value are in the context of causing harm to the environment and in fact has in so many words stated that there is no cause of hatred, but a personal opinion was expressed that respectful cultures and traditions can be taken forward with respect and mindfulness.
Section 295-A does not penalise any and every act of insult to or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of a class of citizens, but it penalises only those acts of insults to or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of a class of citizens, which are perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class.
Procedural History
FIR No. 77/2024 was registered on 14.05.2024 at Mapusa Police Station for offences under Sections 295-A, 153 and 153A IPC. The petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 50 of 2024 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the FIR. The court reserved judgment on 25.09.2024 and pronounced on 03.10.2024.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 295-A, 153, 153A
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
- Constitution of India: 226
