No Prima Facie Case Of Sedition Or Public Mischief | Gujarat High Court Stays Coercive Action Against Congress Leader Booked For Facebook Post On Operation Sindoor
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Gujarat Single Bench of Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar held that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in relation to alleged offences under Sections 152 and 353(1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The court directed that while investigation may continue, the impugned FIR registered with CID Cyber Crime Police Station for offences relating to acts endangering sovereignty and statements conducing to public mischief would not result in coercive action against the petitioner at this stage. The court ordered that the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation, and listed the matter for further hearing on the returnable date.
The petition was filed seeking quashing of FIR being C.R. No. 11201018250021 of 2025 registered with CID Cyber Crime Police Station, Gandhinagar under Sections 152 and 353(1)(a) of BNS and other consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The petitioner is a political delegate associated with Gujarat Congress.
According to the prosecution, the Police Inspector of Cyber Crime Cell while monitoring social media platforms came across a Facebook page titled “Rajesh Soni – Delegate AICC – General Secretary, Gujarat Congress”. Multiple posts published on the page were allegedly misleading and anti-social, including one post that questioned the credibility and commitment of the Indian Army during a military operation titled “Operation Sindoor”. The complainant alleged that such posts could potentially shake public faith in the Armed Forces, and lodged the FIR.
On behalf of the petitioner, it was submitted that he had been falsely implicated with the intention to harass him and that he had not engaged in any illegal act attracting the alleged offences. It was submitted that the petitioner merely reposted content from another source without any malafide intention, and that the essential ingredients of Sections 152 and 353(1)(a) were not satisfied. According to the petitioner, he did not make any statement amounting to public mischief, nor did he incite or attempt to incite secession, armed rebellion, or subversive activities. Further, it was submitted that no material suggested any violation, disruption, institutional disobedience, or act interfering with military operations or public servants’ duties. The petitioner’s counsel argued that there was no adverse impact noticed following the posts and that the FIR had been filed merely to win cheap popularity. It was also submitted that the petitioner was already arrested, produced before the Magistrate, and no remand was sought. Further, it was argued that videos and similar parody posts remained available on social media platforms.
The petitioner prayed for stay of further proceedings of the FIR, submitting that the registration of FIR amounted to gross abuse of the process of law.
The learned APP appearing for the State opposed the petition, contending that it was undisputed that the petitioner had made social media posts that were misleading and anti-social in nature. It was submitted that such posts involved dissemination of false statements, rumours, or reports with potential to cause public unrest, spread fear, or incite offences against the State or public tranquility. The APP submitted that prima facie offences under Sections 152 and 353(1)(a) BNS were attracted, and that investigation should continue without interim relief to the petitioner.
The court referred to the relevant provisions. Section 152 BNS concerns acts endangering sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India, including words or representations that excite or attempt to excite secession or armed rebellion or endanger sovereignty. Section 353(1)(a) relates to making or circulating any false statement or information with intent to cause any armed forces personnel to mutiny or disregard their duty. The explanation under Section 353(1)(a) states that if such statement was made in good faith with reasonable grounds for belief, it would not amount to an offence.
The court noted that after considering the submissions made by both sides and examining the legal provisions along with the allegations in the complaint, it appeared that no other proceedings, including those under the Information Technology Act, had been invoked. It recorded that although the complaint was filed by the Cyber Crime Cell, CID Crime, the alleged posts were noticed during monitoring of social media platforms as part of cyber patrolling, leading to the filing of the impugned complaint.
The court observed that in the present case, although there was a visible representation and electronic comments, there was no material to suggest that the posts made by the petitioner amounted to inciting or attempting to incite secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities, encouraging feelings of separatism, or endangering the sovereignty, unity, or integrity of India.
It further noted that on perusal of the explanation, the comments did not amount to expressing disapproval of government measures or actions. The court stated that considering these aspects and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Imran Pratap Gadhi vs. State of Gujarat, it was required that a preliminary inquiry be conducted before registration of an FIR.
It recorded that there was no material on record to attract the alleged offence, yet the FIR had been registered without verifying these facts or forming the requisite satisfaction.
The court also noted that the learned APP was unable to point out any consequences, violation, disruption, institutional disobedience, or any direct or indirect act interfering with military operations or public servants’ duties leading to mutiny.
The court directed that the Rule is made returnable on 12th August 2025 and recorded that the learned APP waived service of Rule for the respondent State. It ordered that no coercive steps should be taken against the petitioner in relation to the offences under Sections 152 and 353(1)(a) of BNS.
However, it allowed the investigation for the offence to continue and directed that the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation. The court also permitted direct service.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Dhruvik K. Patel Advocate assisted by Mr. Hriday Buch Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Rohan Shah, APP for State of Gujarat
Case Title: Rajesh Thanaji Soni v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number: R/Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No.8446 of 2025
Bench : Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar
