People more sensitive about religion now: Bombay High Court quashes FIR over WhatsApp messages against Islam

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday quashed a first information report (FIR) registered against an army man and a doctor for outraging religious feelings on a WhatsApp group by posting objectionable messages about Islam [Pramod Shendre v The State of Maharashtra and Anr.]. .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."We are constrained to observe that now-adays people have become more sensitive about their religions may be than before and everybody wants to impress as to how his religion/God is Supreme. We are staying in the democratic secular country, where everybody should respect the religion, caste, creed etc. of another. But at the same time, we would also say that if the person says that his religion is Supreme, then the other person may not immediately react. There are ways and means to react on such sensitive issues," the Court stated..The Court was hearing applications by the accused to quash the FIR registered under sections 295A (Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).As per the FIR, the two accused were posting objectionable messages about Islam on a WhatsApp group with 150-200 people and were annoyed that the group members, including the complainant, were not willing to chant 'Vande Mataram'. The ones not chanting 'Vande Mataram' were told to leave India and live in Pakistan by the duo, the complaint added..The applicants contended that the contents of the WhatsApp conversation could not be considered as deliberate and malicious acts that were intended to outrage religious feelings. They argued that they were reputed persons who love their country and therefore, asking them to face trial would be unjust..On the other hand, the State opposed the pleas and contended that the applicants were asking unnecessary questions and were trying to assert the superiority of Hinduism over Islam..The Court noted that for prosecution under section 295A of IPC, a sanction from the State government as required under section196 (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 this 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..Further, the Court noted that the complainant was not added to the group until a day before the FIR was lodged. It questioned how the police concluded that the alleged offending conversations, which took place before the complainant was added, could be said to outrage his religious feelings.Thereafter, the Court observed that people are now more sensitive about their religion and increasingly want to assert the superiority of their religion and god..The Court noted that out of the 150-200 members, the investigating officer (IO) chose only four persons, all Muslims, as witnesses. This, according to the Court, was adoption of a ‘pick and choose’ method by the IO. It further noted that no statement was obtained from the WhatsApp group administrator. "The general statements of those witnesses that the applicants were speaking against their community, will not be considered as intentional insult. Their statements do not show what was the triggering point and when they themselves are not saying that they felt that these applicants are insulting them on their religious beliefs, then it cannot be said that the ingredients of Section 295A of the IPC are attracted," it added..With respect to the allegations of offences under section 504 and 506 IPC, the Court noted that the complainant was the instigator and that the reaction by the accused could not be said to be disproportionate. Considering all these aspects, the Court concluded that there was not even a prima facie case against the applicants. Accordingly, it quashed the FIR registered against them..The applicants were represented by advocate Sameer Sonwana.AThe State was represented by Additional Government Pleader (AGP) Anup Badar.The complainant was represented by advocate RS Akbani..[Read Judgment]