Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke has dismissed a petition by a journalist seeking quashing of an FIR arising from the forwarding of a seven-page message in a closed WhatsApp news group stating, inter alia, that beef consumption is necessary to be a good Hindu. Holding that the complaint alleges publication and circulation of material capable of wounding religious feelings and creating disharmony, the Court found that the FIR, read as a whole, discloses prima facie offences relating to promotion of enmity and deliberate acts affecting religious sentiments. The Court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction to interfere at the investigation stage and allowed the probe against the journalist-administrator to continue.

On 26 September 2025, a resident of Daboh lodged a complaint at Police Station Daboh alleging that the administrator of a WhatsApp news group had posted a seven-page message about the Hindu religion and the Brahmin community, including statements that beef consumption and bovine sacrifices were part of being a good Hindu. On 27 September 2025, an FIR was registered under Sections 196(1)(b), 299, 353(1)(c) and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita against the group administrator.

Also Read: Only Court Of Payee’s Home Branch Has Jurisdiction In Account Payee Cheque Dishonour Cases: Supreme Court Allows Transfer Petition, Clarifies Section 142(2)(a) NI Act

The petitioner contended that the group was a closed platform used for journalistic discourse where only he could post, and that the impugned text was an extract from a book which, to his knowledge, is not banned by the Central or State Government. He claimed it was shared as academic material in exercise of his fundamental rights, without intent to promote enmity or outrage religious feelings, and alleged that the FIR was motivated by his earlier reports on police conduct.

The State opposed the petition, submitting that the complaint and FIR disclose cognizable offences concerning promotion of enmity between groups and deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings. It argued that the allegations describe intentional circulation of material capable of hurting religious sentiments and that, at the investigation stage, the Court should confine itself to whether the FIR discloses such ingredients.

The Court observed that “The present matter involves allegations of publication or circulation of material capable of hurting religious sentiments or promoting disharmony.” It further recorded that “The allegations contained in the impugned FIR, when taken at their face value, disclose prima facie ingredients of the offences invoked.”

As to the petitioner’s defence, the Court stated that “Whether the Petitioner acted with deliberate and malicious intention, whether the extract was quoted in good faith, and whether the content was merely academic or capable of disturbing public tranquillity and whether the Petitioner's post oversteps the permissible limits of free speech are the matters to be examined based on evidence collected during investigation. These are not issues that can be adjudicated at this preliminary stage.”

The Court further recorded that “The plea of mala fides asserted by the Petitioner is also a question of fact, which would require evidence and cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Article 226 at the stage of investigation. The mere assertion that the FIR is a counterblast to earlier journalistic reports cannot, in itself, justify quashing of the FIR when the allegations otherwise disclose cognizable offences.”

Referring to the Supreme Court decisions in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, the Court stated that “The Supreme Court has consistently held that at the stage of considering a prayer for quashing of an FIR, the Court is required only to examine whether the allegations, taken at face value, disclose the commission of any cognizable offence.”

Also Read: Exclusion From Education On Medical Grounds Is Discrimination: MP High Court Orders Admission Of Type-1 Diabetic B.P.Ed Candidate; Cites Global Sporting Icons

In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, the Court laid down that “quashment is justified only in the rarest of rare cases where the allegations do not constitute any offence or are absurd and inherently improbable.” Similarly, in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315, the Supreme Court reiterated that “the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., must refrain from conducting a roving enquiry into the truthfulness of allegations or evaluating the sufficiency of evidence at the FIR stage. The Court further observed that “when the FIR discloses the commission of cognizable offences, investigation should ordinarily proceed unhindered.”

Finally, the Court concluded that “In view of the settled law, and upon careful consideration of the FIR, the submissions made by the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.”

“The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.”

Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Shri Aman Raghuwanshi
For the Respondents: Ms Padamshri Agarwal

Case Title: Buddha Prakash Bouddha v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC-GWL:29778
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 44600 of 2025
Bench: Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke