Facebook Post 
Litigation News

Karnataka High Court quashes FIR against man booked for FB post warning Hindus of ‘jihadi’s sword’

The Court said the message posted on the Facebook account Hindu Samrat Dharmasene did not fulfil the ingredients of the offences of outrage religious feelings under Section 295A.

Hiranya Bhandarkar

The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a criminal case against a social media user booked for a Facebook post warning Hindus, including police and civil service officers, to be aware of a “jihadi's sword” that could "slit" their throats [Atul Kumar Sabarwal v State].

Justice V Srishananda said the message posted on the Facebook account Hindu Samrat Dharmasene did not fulfil the ingredients of the offences of outrage religious feelings under Section 295A or promoting enmity under Section 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

"On close reading of the above ingredients, vis-à-vis the message that has been posted on the Facebook account of the petitioner named as Hindu Samrat Dharmasene, this Court does not find that the suo moto action initiated by the Badavanahalli Police Station, needs further investigation for want of necessary ingredients to attract those offences," the Court said.

Justice V Srishananda

The matter arose in April when the complainant, a member of the police's social media monitoring cell, saw a message on the Hindu Samrat Dharmasene Facebook account.

The message read as,

"If the number of Jihadis increase, no law, no regulations, caste, money, and power will protect you. Be aware Hindus, your protection is in your hands. Whether you are a big police officer, or an IAS or IPS you have to retire one day. Be aware of the Jihadi's sword that will slice your neck."

Badavanahalli Police said the usage of the word, 'Jihadi' in the post was intended to hurt the feelings of the Muslim community and registered an FIR against the petitioner under Sections 295A and 505(2) of IPC.

However, in the order passed on September 21, the Court said allowing such proceedings, wherein ingredients of the offence are not fulfilled, would amount to an abuse of process of the law.

Advocate Madhusudhan Adiga B appeared for the accused.

Additional State Public Prosecutor Surya Mukundaraj appeared for the State.

[Read Order]

Amit Kumar Sabharwal v State.pdf
Preview

Supreme Court asks NALSA to examine plea seeking better remuneration for permanent Lok Adalat members

Jharkhand DGP appointment rule appears to be conflict with Prakash Singh verdict: Supreme Court

Supreme Court seeks State-wise data on regulation, standards of rehab centres for disabled children

Delhi High Court refuses to halt sale of 47 law books amid Delhi Law House family copyright dispute

Punjab & Haryana High Court restrains Rohtak judges from hearing bail pleas in real estate fraud case

SCROLL FOR NEXT