Nagpur: In a notable decision, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court quashed an FIR lodged against an army man and a doctor accused of outraging religious sentiments.
The complaint, filed by Shahbaz Siddiqui, alleged that Pramod Shendre and Dr Subhash Waghe, hailing from Narkhed in Nagpur district, who were members of a WhatsApp group, had used inflammatory language suggesting that members who did not chant “Vande Mataram” should move to Pakistan. Siddiqui’s complaint, lodged in August 2017, led to charges under Sections 295A (outraging religious sentiments), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 504 (intentional insult to breach peace) of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution’s case centred on claims that Shendre and Waghe had posted objectionable content in a WhatsApp group that included both Hindu and Muslim members. Siddiqui, who was reportedly upset by these posts, argued that the statements made by the accused were offensive and intended to insult and intimidate members of the Muslim community. The prosecution highlighted that the group contained approximately 150 to 200 members and that the messages could have had a significant impact on communal harmony.
The defecse, represented by Advocate Sameer Sonwane, argued that the evidence against Shendre and Waghe was insufficient and that the FIR was based on a one-sided narrative. They contended that the investigation was flawed, citing that statements were recorded only from witnesses of the same community as the complainant, and failing to address the group’s admin or other crucial members.
The defence also highlighted that the alleged offensive messages were encrypted and thus could not be easily verified by third parties. Furthermore, they argued that the complainant’s actions, including returning to the clinic with others, suggested provocation rather than a straightforward case of religious insult.
The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court, led by Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Vrushali Joshi, found significant flaws in the prosecution’s case. The court observed that the investigation was biased, noting that the statements of witnesses were selectively recorded and did not represent the diversity of the WhatsApp group. The bench pointed out that the FIR did not establish a prima facie case for charges under Section 295A of the IPC, as the evidence did not conclusively show intent to insult religious sentiments. The court criticized the investigation for failing to gather comprehensive evidence and for the biased approach of recording statements solely from members of the complainant’s community.
The judges also commented on the broader issue of heightened sensitivity regarding religious sentiments in contemporary India, emphasizing that while respect for all religions is paramount, reactions to perceived insults should be measured and not lead to criminal charges without substantial evidence.
Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Vrushali V Joshi observed that people are now more sensitive about their religion and increasingly want to assert the superiority of their religion and God. The Court emphasized that India is a democratic and secular country where everyone should respect others’ religions, caste and creeds. However, it also suggested refraining from reacting immediately to someone asserting the supremacy of their religion.
In summary, the court quashed the FIR against Shendre and Waghe, highlighting procedural irregularities and insufficient evidence to support the charges.
The Court noted that for prosecution under Section 295A of IPC, a sanction from the State Government as required under Section 196 (Prosecution for offences against the State and for criminal conspiracy to commit such offence) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was not obtained.
“Even during the proceedings the said sanction order has not been produced. On this count the FIR and the proceedings need to be quashed and set aside,” the Court observed.
Adv. Sameer Sonwane, Adv. Amit Thakur, Adv. Aaquid Mirza and Adv. Shiba Thakur represented applicants. The State was represented by Additional Government Pleader (AGP) Anup Badar. The complainant was represented by Advocate R S Akbani.
