Court holds absence of deliberate and malicious intention and incitement in Facebook post; continuation of proceedings deemed abuse of process of law
In a significant judgment delivered on September 21, 2026, the Karnataka High Court, through Justice V. Srishananda, quashed a First Information Report (FIR) registered against Atul Kumar Sabarwal, also known as Madhugiri Modi, for posting a message on a Facebook account titled "Hindu Samrat Dharmasene." The FIR was filed suo motu by the Badavanahalli Police Station in Tumkur District, alleging offences under Sections 295A and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), contending that the post hurt the feelings of the Muslim community and could result in social disharmony.
The petitioner challenged the registration of the FIR, submitting that the message did not contain the necessary ingredients to constitute offences under Sections 295A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings) and 505(2) (statements causing fear, alarm, or inciting one community against another) of the IPC. The Additional State Public Prosecutor countered by asserting that the post contained words intended to hurt the Muslim community, warranting investigation.
The Court meticulously analyzed the essential ingredients of the relevant statutory provisions. For Section 295A, the Court noted that there must be an insult or attempt to insult religion or religious belief of a class of citizens with deliberate and malicious intention. Regarding Section 505(2), the offence requires the making or circulation of statements with the intent or likelihood to cause fear or alarm or incite one community to commit offences against another.
Upon close examination of the Facebook post, the Court found the absence of such deliberate malice or incitement. Consequently, it concluded that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The Court therefore allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings registered as Crime No. 40/2024.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding freedom of expression while ensuring that criminal law provisions concerning religious sentiments and public order are not misused or invoked without requisite ingredients. It clarifies the threshold for offences under Sections 295A and 505(2) of the IPC, emphasizing the necessity of deliberate intention and incitement.
Bottom Line:
Penal Code, 1860, Sections 295A and 505(2) - Quashing of FIR - Facebook post alleged to have hurt feelings of a particular community and cause social disharmony - On plain reading of message and ingredients of offences, Court found absence of necessary ingredients, particularly deliberate and malicious intention under Section 295A and incitement/social disharmony ingredients under Section 505(2) - Continuation of proceedings held to be abuse of process of law - FIR quashed.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 295A, 505(2)
