A social media post lacking ingredients of Sections 295A and 505(2) IPC cannot sustain prosecution.

The petitioner challenged an FIR registered by Badavanahalli Police Station in Crime No. 40/2024 under Sections 295A and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The FIR followed a complaint by a member of a social-media monitoring cell, who alleged that a Facebook post on the account “Hindu Samrat Dharmasene,” said to be operated by the petitioner, hurt the feelings of a particular community and could cause social disharmony.

The petitioner sought quashing on the ground that the post did not disclose the ingredients of either offence.

1. Whether the Facebook post, on its face, disclosed the ingredients of an offence under Section 295A IPC.

2. Whether the post disclosed the ingredients of an offence under Section 505(2) IPC such as to justify continuation of the criminal proceedings.

The Court applied Section 295A IPC, which requires an insult or attempted insult to a religion or religious beliefs, by words, signs, visible representation or otherwise, with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of a class of citizens.

It also applied Section 505(2) IPC, which concerns the making, publication or circulation of a statement, rumour or report with the requisite intent or likelihood of inciting one class or community to commit an offence against another class or community, among other specified consequences.

The Court stated that criminal proceedings could not continue where the allegations, on their face, lacked the necessary ingredients of the charged offences and continuation would amount to an abuse of process.

The Court compared the post with the statutory ingredients of Sections 295A and 505(2) IPC.

It concluded that the post did not disclose the necessary ingredients of either offence and that further investigation was therefore unwarranted.

The allegation that the words might hurt a community’s feelings or cause social disharmony did not, in the Court’s assessment, establish the statutory requirements for the offences charged.

It quashed the proceedings in Crime No. 40/2024, registered under Sections 295A and 505(2) IPC and pending before the JMFC at Madhugiri, holding that their continuation would amount to an abuse of the process of law.