Allahabad High Court denies relief to man accused of hate speech against UP CM Yogi Adityanath, Dhirendra Shastri on Facebook

The Allahabad High Court recently refused to quash a first information report (FIR) registered against a man who allegedly posted hate speech against Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and spiritual leader Dhirendra Shastri on Facebook [Deepak v State]..The petitioner Deepak, a member of the Bhim Army, moved the High Court to quash the case registered against him under Section 505(2) (public mischief) of Indian Penal Code, with a further prayer to stay his arrest.A complaint was lodged by one Vijay Kumar Gautam alleging that the petitioner made hate speech on Facebook against CM Adityanath and Shastri.A Bench of Justices Ramesh Sinha (now Chief Justice of Chhattisgarh High Court) and Narendra Kumar Johari observed that a prima facie case was made out against Deepak, and thereby rejected his plea."From the perusal of the F.I.R., prima facie, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, hence no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioner," the Court observed..Before the High Court, counsel for the petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated in the case with mala fide intention, and that no offence was made out against him.On the contrary, counsel for the State submitted that the FIR discloses a cognizable offence against Deepak..After considering the facts, the Court observed that it was apparent that the petitioner had made a derogatory and disrespectful comment against CM Adityanath and Shastri.Moreover, from the allegations in the FIR, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence was made out against the petitioner, the Court added."In view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited vs. State of Maharashtra: AIR 2021 SC 1918 and on perusal of the impugned F.I.R. and material on record, it transpires that, prima facie, a case is made out against the petitioner. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners relates to disputed questions of facts, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in jurisdiction of under Article 226 of Constitution of India," the order stated..The petitioner was represented by Advocates Prateek Shrivastava, Avinash Singh Vishen and Vishram Kumar Chauhan..[Read Order]