The complainant alleged that the accused had posted derogatory content about Hindu gods on social media and when confronted, he hurled caste-based abuse targeting the complainant
The Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a petition seeking to quash a First Information Report (FIR) filed against a man identified as Mohammad Bilal for uploading an offensive post on Instagram abusing Hindu Gods. Bilal claimed that on August 15, 2023, some unknown individuals hacked his Instagram account and uploaded the post.
The court, presided over by Justice GS Ahluwalia, rejected the petition, stating that Bilal’s defence —that his account was hacked — cannot be considered at this stage of the investigation. The court highlighted that while exercising its quashing powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it “has to consider the allegations as a gospel truth and then come to a conclusion as to whether any offence is made out or not.”
The case stemmed from a complaint that alleged Bilal had uploaded a post that hurt the complainant’s religious sentiments by posting offensive content targeting Hindu gods, Sanatana Dharma and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, on his Instagram account. When confronted by the complainant, rather than clarifying that his account had been hacked, the petitioner allegedly abused and humiliated the complainant, who belonged to the Scheduled Caste community. An FIR was registered on August 17, 2023, under Sections 294 (obscene acts), 153-A (promoting enmity between groups), and 295-A (acts intended to outrage religious feelings) of the Indian Penal Code, as well as sections of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Bilal’s counsel, Advocate Rishabh Singh, argued that both Bilal and his father had promptly reported the hacking incident, yet an FIR was filed. It was maintained that the allegations in the FIR were false and Bilal was not involved in putting up the post. The petitioner, thus, sought relief by requesting the quashing of the FIR, emphasising that the post was not deliberately uploaded by Bilal.
Representing the state, government advocate Abhishek Singh countered that the complainant had confronted Bilal about the offensive post, but instead of offering an explanation regarding the alleged hacking, Bilal reacted aggressively, verbally abusing and humiliating the complainant. The state argued that Bilal’s conduct after the incident cast doubt on his claim that the post was uploaded by someone else.
In its ruling, the court observed that Bilal had admitted that the offensive post was indeed uploaded on his Instagram account. The court noted that whether the post was uploaded by Bilal or someone else hacking his account was a matter of defence that could not be determined at this stage of the proceedings. The court stated that “even if it is presumed (not a finding) that the offensive post was uploaded on the Instagram account of the petitioner by hacking his account still then petitioner had no right/authority to commit the offence as alleged in the FIR”.
The court further observed: “This conduct of the petitioner indicates that the defence of uploading the offensive post on his Instagram account by somebody else is incorrect,” emphasising that for the purposes of deciding whether an FIR should be quashed, the allegations made in the FIR must be taken at face value and the defence of the accused cannot be considered.
As the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence, the court concluded that there was no basis for interference. The petition was, hence, dismissed.
