Court Finds Prima Facie No Offence Under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 or IT Act, 2000; Orders Explanation from Police for Charge-sheet Filed Despite Stay
In a significant judgment dated September 30, 2026, the Allahabad High Court (Division Bench, Lucknow) has stayed the FIR registered against Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, who had posted on Facebook alleging irregularities in the State Sub-Inspector Recruitment Examination, 2025. The FIR was lodged under Sections 221, 292, 353(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (Amended 2008).
The petitioner challenged the FIR contending that none of the offences invoked against him were made out on the face of the complaint. Section 221 relates to obstructing a public servant in discharge of his duties; Section 292 pertains to public nuisance; Section 353(1)(b) criminalizes statements conducing to public mischief, subject to exceptions; and Section 66D punishes cheating by personation using computer resources.
After perusing the FIR and submissions, the Court observed the following:
- There was no material to show that the petitioner obstructed any public servant in the discharge of official functions as alleged under Section 221 BNS.
- The FIR did not disclose any public nuisance as defined under Section 270 BNS, which requires causing common injury, danger or annoyance to the public. The Court noted that if any public annoyance had occurred, it was for the public, not the police officer, to initiate action.
- The petitioner's Facebook post was protected under the exception clause of Section 353 BNS, which states that statements made on reasonable grounds believed to be true do not constitute an offence. Since the petitioner believed irregularities had occurred, lodging an FIR was premature and appeared to be "killing the messenger."
- The offence under Section 66D IT Act was not made out from the facts of the FIR.
Based on this prima facie assessment, the Court found sufficient grounds to interfere and stayed the FIR and any coercive action against the petitioner.
However, the Court expressed concern that despite the stay order dated August 11, 2026, the Investigating Officer had forwarded the charge-sheet on September 21, 2026. This act was seen as a violation of the Court's interim order. Accordingly, the Court directed the Station House Officer (S.H.O.) of Police Station Hussainganj, Lucknow, to file a personal affidavit explaining the investigation process and reasons for forwarding the charge-sheet despite the stay.
The Court granted two weeks' time for the S.H.O. to comply and listed the matter for further hearing on October 22, 2026.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's role in protecting citizens' rights to raise concerns on social media regarding public examinations and scrutinizes law enforcement agencies for procedural lapses during investigation, especially when interim judicial protection is in place.
Bottom Line:
FIR alleging offences under Sections 221, 292, 353(1)(b) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66D of Information Technology Act, 2000/Amendment Act, 2008, against petitioner for Facebook post regarding alleged irregularities in State Sub-Inspector Recruitment Examination - Court had prima facie found that ingredients of alleged offences were not made out and stayed FIR as well as coercive action - Despite stay order, investigating officer forwarded charge-sheet - SHO directed to explain by personal affidavit how investigation was conducted and charge-sheet forwarded in face of subsisting stay order.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 221, 292, 353(1)(b), Information Technology Act, 2000 Section 66D
Ashutosh Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2995502
