Derogatory remarks alone do not satisfy BNS offences of promoting enmity or circulating false information.

The petitioner, who claimed to operate the online news channel Arambagh TV, was accused of saying during a live telecast that East Bengal Club belonged to Rohingyas and that clubs such as East Bengal should be banned from India.

On a viewer’s complaint, Manicktala Police Station registered Case No. 117 of 2024 under Sections 196 and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS); investigation was stayed by an interim order, and no charge sheet had been filed.

The complainant later sought impleadment and stated that he did not wish to pursue the case.

The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR and resulting proceedings.

Whether the complaint, taken at face value, disclosed the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 196 BNS.

Whether the complaint disclosed the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 353(2) BNS.

Whether the FIR and resulting proceedings should be quashed, including in light of the complainant’s stated unwillingness to pursue the case.

Under Article 226 of the Constitution and the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), proceedings may be quashed where, accepting the allegations at face value, no offence is made out or continuation would amount to an abuse of process; the power must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335).

Section 196 BNS requires promotion or attempted promotion of disharmony or enmity between at least two qualifying groups, together with the requisite intention; incitement of one group without reference to another is insufficient (Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P., (1997) 7 SCC 431; Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 5 SCC 1).

The alleged words must be assessed as a whole and against the standard of reasonable, strong-minded persons (Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya, (2021) 15 SCC 35).

Section 353(2) BNS requires a statement or report containing false information, rumour or alarming news, alongside the specified intent or likelihood of promoting inter-group enmity.

A complainant’s consent alone does not justify quashing a prosecution concerning an offence with a societal dimension; the court must independently assess whether the allegations disclose an offence (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303).

The Court assessed the complaint independently of the complainant’s later position.

For Section 196, it found that the complaint did not identify the qualifying groups between whom enmity was allegedly promoted, and that supporters of a sporting club did not constitute a group of the kind specified by the provision.

The alleged intention was stated as a conclusion, without supporting facts, and the complaint did not show a tendency to promote inter-group enmity when assessed by the applicable standard.

For Section 353(2), the complaint alleged that the comments were derogatory and provocative but did not allege that they contained false information, rumour or alarming news.

Thus, even accepting the allegations as true, the essential ingredients of either offence were absent.

It quashed Manicktala Police Station Case No. 117 of 2024 and all proceedings arising from it, discharged any bail bond furnished by the petitioner, and directed that a copy of the order be transmitted to the jurisdictional Magistrate.