Madhya Pradesh High Court refuses to quash FIR against Congress worker over FB post on PM Modi

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently refused to quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered against a Congress worker over a Facebook post stating that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had “withdrawn” from the war with Pakistan under pressure from the neighboring country [Yadvendra Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh].

Justice Vishal Mishra opined that the investigating agency has collected sufficient material against the accused, Yadvendra Yadav, who is a member of the Congress and Up-Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Singhpur. 

“There is a very limited scope of interference in a petition seeking quashment of the FIR. The High Court should be vigilant and should interfere in rare of rarest cases where prima facie looking to the FIR no offence is made out against the concern, but in the present case, there is sufficient material collected by the prosecution against the petitioner. Furthermore, the investigation in the matter is still pending,” the Court said. 

The Court added under these circumstances, there cannot be any quashing of the FIR and criminal proceedings against the petitioner. 

“The grounds which are being raised are all matter of evidence that is to be establish before the trial Court. At this stage, it cannot be concluded that the allegations made in the complaint/FIR have a truth of ring or not or whether ingredients of the offences alleged are made out or not,” it further said.

The FIR was registered against Yadav on the complaint that he had “posted ludicrous photos and made viral a video in his Facebook account saying that Hon'ble Prime Minister under the pressure of the Pakistan has withdrawn the attack / War over the Pakistan.”

It was also alleged that he had used “used scurrilous language against the Indian Arms Forces.”

Seeking quashing of the case, he argued that the FIR was politically motivated and registered on the complaint of supporters of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). He also stated that he had no intention to damage the reputation of the country in any manner.

However, the Court said the position of law was settled that the High Court cannot embark upon appreciation of evidence and cannot undertake a detailed examination of the facts contained in the FIR by acting as an appellate court.

“Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out warranting interference as the investigation is pending in the matter,” it added, while dismissing the plea.

Advocate Sanjeev Kumar Singh represented the petitioner. 

Deputy Advocate General Swapnil Ganguly represented the State.

[Read Order]