The Allahabad High Court ruled that claiming someone was framed because of their religion can outrage religious feelings and promote enmity. The Court refused to quash the case, emphasizing that such statements warrant investigation under the BNS.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: The Allahabad High Court recently observed that the circulation of messages on social media claiming that a person has been falsely implicated in a case due to their religion can amount to promoting enmity and hatred between religious communities.
The Division Bench comprising Justice JJ Munir and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava held that such actions would attract Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), a provision that penalizes any statement made with the intent to create or promote enmity, hatred, or ill-will among different social or religious groups.
Background of the Case
The Court was hearing a plea filed by a man seeking to quash an FIR registered by the Bijnour Police. The case arose after he allegedly circulated inflammatory WhatsApp messages following the arrest of his brother in a separate case involving alleged illegal religious conversions.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the message merely expressed resentment over the arrest and even conveyed faith in the judicial process. However, the Court took a more critical view of the content and implications of the message.
Court’s Observations
The Bench observed that even though the message did not explicitly mention any religion, it conveyed an implicit narrative, suggesting that the accused’s brother was being targeted because of his religious identity.
“These unsaid words in the message prima facie would outrage religious feelings of a class of citizens hailing from a particular community, who would think that they are being targeted because of belonging to a particular religious community,”
the Court said.
The judges further noted that, even if one assumed that no community’s religious feelings were directly hurt, the “unsaid words” in the message were likely to create or promote enmity, hatred, or ill-will between communities.
Legal Reasoning
While the Court clarified that the act may not fall under Section 353(3) BNS, it prima facie attracted Section 353(2). The Bench emphasized that the nature of the message, the context of the FIR, and the wide circulation of the post indicated that the matter required thorough investigation.
Accordingly, the Court refused to quash the FIR or interfere with the ongoing investigation under Article 226 of the Constitution.
“In the totality of circumstances, we are of opinion that this is a matter which requires investigation and cannot be scuttled at an incipient stage,”
the Court held.
Appearance:
For the accused: Advocate Syed Shahnawaz Shah
For the State: Additional Government Advocate Shashi Shekhar Tiwari
Case Title:
Afaq Ahmad v State of UP and Others
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. – 21834 of 2025
Read Judgment: