Each forward of objectionable WhatsApp message can’t be interpreted as creating rift in society: Bombay HC

A division bench of Justices V V Kankanwadi and S G Chapalgaonkar passed the verdict on September 19 on a criminal application by one Dnyaneshwar Wakale, 34, a resident of Khultabad in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar district, argued through advocate R V Gore.

The plea sought direction to quash the 2018 FIR against Wakale for offences punishable under Sections 295-A (outraging religious sentiments) and 153-A (promoting enmity between two groups) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

“We are aware of the sentiments of the people when such objectionable posts are created and then made viral. The reality in life nowadays is that there is rampant use of smart phones and the WhatsApp messenger or any such App and the social media but certain persons are not that techno-savvy and in such circumstances they will land in trouble on some occasion. People are also interested in forwarding every stuff in the form of messages, photos, videos, reels etc. and even on many occasions not even watching that they will forward it,” the bench observed.

“People are required to exercise self-restraint in such situations and not to forward whatever is received on such Application or social media platforms. Anyway, each forward of such message cannot be interpreted to create unrest in the society or two groups of people or two races,” it added.

The prosecution had claimed that the complainant in the case received an objectionable post that insulted Ambedkar from another person and after further enquiry, he came to know that the present applicant had initially posted it on a certain WhatsApp group. The complainant was not a member of the said group.

Advocate Gore for the applicant argued that the police failed to investigate the origin of the post and if it was created by the applicant. He said that the applicant had no intention to hurt the feelings of any community and had immediately apologised to the said group.

The bench observed that “unless the post is sent by the member of a group to another person who is not from the group, the question of it going viral does not arise.”

It questioned the ‘quality of investigation’ by terming it of ‘low standard’. The high court noted that the entire chargesheet failed to show that there was any effort by the police to find out as to who was the member of the group who had made it viral or sent it to the person who was not a member of the group.

The bench also expressed displeasure over the district court taking cognisance of the chargesheet without ascertaining whether the police had taken proper sanction from authorities for invoking certain offences. Quashing the FIR, the HC said, “We want to put the Judges of the District Judiciary on guard and direct them that they should consider these provisions whenever they are necessary and pass detailed orders in respect of the same.”