Why Jharkhand High Court quashed FIR against woman accused of insulting Lord Jesus on social media

Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary said that there is no evidence suggesting anyone other than the informant had seen the post. 

Noting that there is no allegation that anyone other than the informant has seen the posting made on social media, the order added that there is also no allegation that the religious feelings of anyone other than the informant have been outraged.

Allegation of hurting sentiments of Christian community

• The petitioner was charged under Sections 292 (public nuisance), 299 (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings), and 302 (punishment for murder) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 67 (punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
• The informant alleged that she used “filthy language” on her social media channel to abuse Lord Jesus, thereby hurting the religious sentiments of the Christian community and disturbing harmony with followers of the Sarna religion (Hindu religion).
• The petitioner moved the high court seeking to quash the proceedings.
• Appearing for the petitioner, advocates Gautam Kumar and Sanjay Kr. Sinha relied upon the Judgement of this court in the case of Mukesh Kumar Shukla, Mukesh Pinku Shukla vs The State of Jharkhand and another.
• They stated that there being no allegation against the petitioner, that the petitioner, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of a class of citizens of India, has done anything, nor is there any allegation that the posting in this social media.
• They argued that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner is considered to be true in its entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 299 of BNS is not made out.
• Representing the state, a special public prosecutor, Vishwanath Roy, opposed the prayer and submitted that the allegation made in the FIR is sufficient to constitute each of the offences in respect of which the FIR has been registered.

‘Only informant’s feelings have been outraged’

• There is no allegation in the FIR by the informant of causing any common injury, danger, or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or of causing injury, obstruction, danger, or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right.
• In the absence of this essential ingredient, the offence punishable under Section 292 of the BNS, 2023, is not made out.
• The offence punishable under Section 299 of BNS is concerned, the essential ingredient to constitute the said offence is that the petitioner insulted or attempted to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of any class of persons of India deliberately, maliciously, and intentionally to outrage the religious feelings of that class of citizens.

• In the absence of the essential ingredient that the petitioner committed the alleged act deliberately, maliciously, and intentionally to outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens, the offence punishable under Section 299 of the BNS, 2023, is not made out.
• This court is of the considered view that even if all the allegations made against the petitioner are taken to be true in their entirety, the offence punishable under Section 299 of the BNS, 2023, is still not made out.
• The offence punishable under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, is concerned, the same envisages punishment for publication or transmission, etc.
• The offence punishable under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, is not made out even if the entire allegation made in the First Information Report is considered to be true in its entirety.
• Continuation of this FIR against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of the law, and this is a fit case where the FIR, as well as the entire criminal proceeding, should be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.