Malicious Intention Of Outraging Religious Feelings: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash Case Against Man For His Alleged FB Post On Nabi Paigamber

The applicant approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the charge sheet, cognisance and summoning order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra, along with proceedings in a case registered under sections 302, 353(2) of BNS.

The Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Srivastava held, “From perusal of the material on record including the comment made by the applicant, this Court finds that the words employed in the post clearly, are ones made with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of a particular section of the community or a class of citizens of the country. At this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. The assertions of false implication raised by the applicant are factual issues that require proper adjudication by the trial court based on evidence and cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS. In proceeding u/s 528 BNSS, this Court is not inclined to hold mini-trial.”

Advocate Ruby Goutam represented the Appellant, while Government Advocate represented the Opposite Party.

Factual Background

The FIR was lodged against the applicant, alleging that he made a post against Nabi Paigamber of the Muslim community on the social media platform Facebook. It was alleged that such a post was resented by some people of the muslim community, since the same was hurting the religious sentiments of the said community. After the conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the applicant, whereupon cognisance of the offence was taken up against him. It was in such circumstances that the applicant approached the High Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case and the materials placed before the Court, the Bench found that the words employed in the post were made with a deliberate attempt to outrage the religious feelings. While dealing with the assertions of false implication, the Bench stated that at the stage of summoning, the Magistrate is only required to record a prima facie opinion, based on the material on record, and is not expected to hold a mini-trial or to examine the defence of the accused.

“It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS are to be exercised sparingly and with caution, primarily to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice”, the order read.

Finding no sufficient ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Section 528 BNSS, the Bench dismissed the application.

Cause Title: Manish Tiwari v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:216429)

Click here to read/download Order