‘People have become more sensitive about their religions,’ HC quashes FIR against two accused of ‘outraging religious sentiments’

“We live in a democratic secular country where everyone should respect the religion, caste, creed, etc of others.

However, we also believe that if someone claims their religion is supreme, others should not react impulsively.

There are ways and means to handle such sensitive issues,” noted a division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Vrushali Joshi in their verdict.

The judgment was passed in response to applications filed by Pramod Udeybhan Shendre, an army technician, and Dr Subhash Dnyaneshwar Waghe. They were booked in August 2017 based on a complaint by one Shahbaz Siddiqui.

According to the FIR, the two applicants were making certain ‘outrageous’ remarks in a Muslim community WhatsApp group called ‘Narkhed Ghadamodi (Narkhed News).’ Siddiqui claimed he was intentionally added to the group to instigate tension. As per the FIR, the applicants became annoyed after learning that some group members were unwilling to say ‘Vande Mataram’ and reacted by suggesting that such individuals should leave India and go to Pakistan.

The FIR stated that the complainant visited Dr Waghe’s clinic the following day (August 3, 2017) to ask him not to speak against their religion, which led to an altercation.

The FIR was lodged by Narkhed police for offenses punishable under sections 295A (outraging religious sentiments), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 504 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Advocate Sameer Sonwane, representing the applicants, argued that the chats in question could not be seen as deliberate or malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any community.

The bench noted that despite 15-200 people from both communities being members of the WhatsApp group, the prosecution adopted a ‘pick and choose’ approach by recording statements from only four individuals belonging to the complainant’s community. The court stated that these general statements could not be seen as intentional insults by the applicants.

The court also pointed out the absence of an investigation into the identity of the WhatsApp group admin, whose statement would have been ‘important’ but was not recorded.

Regarding the incident at Dr. Waghe’s clinic, the bench remarked, “All the facts clearly show that the complainant was the aggressor and went to Dr Waghe’s hospital to provoke him. If he was the instigator, he should also be prepared for a reaction. If the applicants reacted, it would not amount to an offense, as the FIR’s contents do not suggest that their reaction was disproportionate,” the HC observed.

“We do not find even a prima facie case against the applicants. It would be unjust to require both applicants to face trial,” the bench concluded.