FIR Silent On Harming Reputation: Gujarat High Court Quashes FIR Against Man Accused Of Forwarding Fake Newspaper Cutting In Whatsapp
The Gujarat High Court was considering a Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of an FIR.
Justice P.M.Raval, Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has quashed a criminal case registered under Section 469 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against a man after noting that he had only forwarded a newspaper cutting carrying fake news to another co-accused without forging the news item. The High Court also noted that both the FIR and the chargesheet were conspicuously silent with regard to harming reputation.
The High Court was considering a Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 469, 500, 501, 120(B) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
The Single Bench of Justice P. M. Raval held, “However, from the reading of the entire FIR as well as from the papers of chargesheet, both are conspicuously silent with regards to harming reputation. Even if the allegations are taken as it is on the face of it do not constitute offence under Section 469 of the IPC.”
“He has not indulged into circulating the said news if at all is if it is fake, coupled with the fact that the publisher and/or the editor of the said newspaper are not made accused in the impugned FIR or in the chargesheet also, who have allegedly published the alleged defamatory statement as per the complainant. But, for the role of forwarding the said newspaper cutting to co-accused Mr. Nishyal Sangani, no role is attributed to the present petitioner”, it added.
Advocate Manthan V Shukla represented the Applicant while Advocate Ratna Vora represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
It was the case of the petitioner that the impugned complaint was filed at the instance of the second respondent – original complainant, as he was working as a Public Notary, a member of Bahujan Samaj Party and also published the magazine “Nyayik Samiksha”. On July 5, 2021, the brother of the complainant received a WhatsApp message, which was fake news from Nimesh Dodiya (first accused). It was alleged that the accused persons, in conspiracy and connivance with each other, had circulated the fake news with the intention to defame the complainant and his political party. Hence, in this regard a complaint came to be filed.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench found that the role attributed to the petitioner was only forwarding a photograph of a newspaper, namely Young Leader, Ahmedabad, which was forwarded to Nishyal Jashavantbhai Sangani, who in turn forwarded the said message to the complainant.
The Bench explained that to attract the provisions of Section 469 of the IPC, a person has to first forge a document with an intention to harm the reputation or knowing that it is likely to be used for that purpose (harming reputation). “However, from the reading of the entire FIR as well as from the papers of chargesheet, both are conspicuously silent with regards to harming reputation. Even if the allegations are taken as it is on the face of it do not constitute offence under Section 469 of the IPC. Not an iota of evidence is collected during investigation, nor is there any whisper in the FIR nor in the counter of the chargesheet, which would reveal attracting the provisions of Section 469 of the IPC”, it added.
It was further noticed that the allegation was that the complainant received a photo of one newspaper cutting in WhatsApp. However, the petitioner had only forwarded it to one Nishyal Sangani, who had preferred a Criminal Misc. Application for quashing and setting aside the FIR, which came to be allowed. It was noticed that the petitioner had forwarded the said newspaper cutting to the complainant and except for this no other role was attributed to him.
The Bench also explained, “Thus, when no offence under Section 500 or 501 of the IPC is made out against the present petitioner, more particularly, for lodging of a complaint for attracting provisions of Sections 500 and 501 of the IPC, a complaint under Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C. is required to be lodged by the aggrieved person before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate and that no FIR is maintainable as both these offences are non-cognizable offence.”
Thus, allowing the petition, the Bench quashed the FIR and the consequential proceedings against the petitioner.
Cause Title: Kaushalbhai Jagdishbhai Asodiya v. State of Gujarat ( Case No.:R/CR.MA/850/2022)
Appearance
Applicant: Advocate Manthan V Shukla
Respondent: Advocates Ratna Vora, Additional Public Prosecutor Rohan Shah