The Bombay high court has sought a reply from the state government on whether or not it can quash an FIR regarding messages on WhatsApp that are said to be objectionable.
The Bombay high court has sought a reply from the state government on whether or not it can quash an FIR regarding messages on WhatsApp that are said to be objectionable. The high court is hearing a case in which the FIR has been registered against an applicant accused of posting ‘objectionable’ messages on WhatsApp.
The high court asked the state government: “If anybody is texting objectionable messages on WhatsApp and an FIR has been registered against the accused, and the accused comes before the high court to quash that FIR, can the HC quash such FIRs ”
The high court also observed that objectionable messages about caste, religion and gods have increased on WhatsApp.
A division bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice A.A. Sayed was hearing a petition in which petitioner Sanjay Salunkhe has prayed that an FIR against him be quashed.
According to the petition, Mr Salunkhe and Abhay Bhandari are members of WhatsApp groups named ‘Om’ and ‘Shivratna’. On May 31, 2015, and June 15, 2016, Mr Salunkhe had texted ‘objectionable’ messages against a particular caste and its gods and deities. After reading those messages, Mr Bhandari, the complainant, had registered the FIR against Mr Salunkhe at Jatt police station in Sangli district, complaining that the messages had hurt his religious sentiments.
Fearing arrest, Mr Salunkhe had filed an anticipatory bail application in the Sangli sessions court. The court granted him anticipatory bail.
Now, Mr Salunkhe has moved the high court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to have the FIR against him quashed.
Mr Salunkhe’s petition said that the alleged FIR is nothing but the process of the law being abused with malafide intentions so that hurdles are created in the appointment of the applicant to the post of police patil of Ghoti village in Sangli district.
The petition added that there is no clinching evidence whatsoever to connect Mr Salunkhe with the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in the crime.
After hearing the petitioner’s contention, the high court observed that such types of offences are increasing in the society we live in. The court wanted to know if it could quash such FIRs under section 482 of the CrPC, and has given the state four weeks to file its reply.
