A Delhi court has asked the police what action they have taken on a complaint seeking an FIR against a minor and her father over allegedly communal social-media posts, without itself ordering any FIR. The allegations are untested, and, because the person complained against is a minor, any proceeding would be governed by the juvenile-justice framework, not the ordinary criminal process.
New Delhi: A Delhi court has issued notice to the Delhi Police and sought a status report on a plea seeking the registration of a First Information Report against a minor girl, described as a Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protester, and her father, over allegations of derogatory and communal social-media posts.
Chief Judicial Magistrate Mridul Gupta of the Patiala House Courts issued the notice on a complaint case filed by a lawyer, directing the police to file a detailed status report on the action taken so far. The matter has been listed in January 2027.
The plea
The application has been filed under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which permits a Magistrate, on being approached, to order the registration of an FIR where the police have not acted on a complaint. The complainant has sought an FIR for offences under Sections 196 (promoting enmity between groups), 299 (deliberate acts to outrage religious feelings) and 353 (statements conducing to public mischief) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, alleging that the posts insulted religious deities and incited communal hatred, and that they were not taken down despite an opportunity to do so.
These are the allegations of the complainant, which are yet to be tested; the court has not recorded any finding on them, and has not, at this stage, ordered the registration of any FIR. The specific content of the posts is not detailed here.
The context
The complaint is stated to have arisen against the backdrop of an altercation connected with the CJP protests, in the course of which the minor’s father was allegedly assaulted and injured; a separate FIR was registered in relation to that incident against another person, who was granted interim bail earlier this month. The present plea, however, concerns only the complainant’s separate grievance over the social-media posts and her attempt to have an FIR registered in respect of them.
The identities of the persons complained against are not disclosed here. One of them is a minor, and the law prohibits the publication of any particulars that could identify a child alleged to be in conflict with law; that protection also extends to details, such as the identity of a parent, that would indirectly identify the child.
Why it matters
The order is a routine but instructive step in the Section 175(3) BNSS process. That provision is the statutory route for a complainant who alleges that the police have not registered an FIR on information disclosing a cognizable offence; the Magistrate does not order an FIR mechanically, but, as the Supreme Court has held, applies his mind to the complainant’s submissions and the police’s response before deciding whether an investigation is warranted. Seeking a status report on the action taken is part of that inquiry, and does not amount to a direction to register an FIR.
The fact that one of the persons complained against is a minor is legally significant. A child alleged to be in conflict with law is dealt with not through the ordinary criminal courts but under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, through the Juvenile Justice Board, with an emphasis on the child’s rehabilitation. The law also protects the child’s identity: Section 74 of that Act prohibits the disclosure of the name, address, school or any particulars that could identify a child in conflict with law, which is why such a child, and details that would identify them, cannot be named in reporting.
Nothing has been decided on the merits. The court has sought the police’s status report and will consider the matter afresh on the next date; whether an FIR is warranted, and, if so, how the case involving a minor is to proceed under the juvenile-justice framework, are questions for later stages. The allegations remain untested, and those complained against are entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Matter: Complaint case under Section 175(3) BNSS seeking registration of an FIR over allegedly communal social-media posts
Court: Chief Judicial Magistrate Mridul Gupta, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
Order: Notice issued to Delhi Police; detailed status report on action taken sought
Status: Notice/status-report stage; no FIR ordered. Accused include a minor, whose identity is protected under the Juvenile Justice Act. Allegations untested. Listed January 2027.