Allahabad High Court Stays FIR Against Raja Bhaiya Over Social Media Posts

The Allahabad High Court has stayed an FIR against Raja Singh alias Raja Bhaiya registered over allegedly offensive and abusive social media posts, after noting that the FIR had been lodged by a representative of the person against whom the alleged insults were directed.

A bench of Justices Abdul Moin and Pramod Kumar Srivastava stayed the FIR registered at Kotwali City police station in Pratapgarh against Singh under Sections 356(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 [corresponding to Section 500 and Section 504 of the IPC] and Section 67-A of the Information Technology Act, 2008. The order was passed on August 20.

Court was dealing with Raja Bhaiya's petition seeking quashing of the FIR, which, according to him, was lodged by a representative of a former state minister over certain media posts allegedly containing offensive and abusive content.

FIR under Section 352 BNS

Court prima facie found an issue with the fact that the FIR had been lodged by the representative of the person who was allegedly insulted.

Section 352 BNS deals with intentional insult intended, or known to be likely, to provoke a person into breaking public peace or committing another offence. Reproducing the provision in its order, court noted that the offence requires intentional insult accompanied by such provocation.

"A bare reading" of Section 352 BNS, the court said, prima facie indicates that the person who has been insulted by such utterances is the aggrieved person for the purpose of lodging the FIR.

In the present case, the alleged insults were directed against another person, but the FIR was lodged by his representative.

"The Court is prima facie of the view that the FIR could not have been lodged by the representative of the said person," the Bench said, adding that it was the person who had allegedly been insulted who ought to have lodged the FIR and indicated that he had been provoked by the utterances.

What did Raja Bhaiya argue about criminal defamation?

Raja Bhaiya also challenged the invocation of Section 356(2) BNS, which relates to defamation.

Relying on the Supreme Court's 2016 judgment in Subramaniam Swamy v Union of India, his counsel argued that an FIR cannot be registered for criminal defamation. According to the submission, proceedings for criminal defamation have to be initiated through a complaint by the person aggrieved.

The counsel for Raja Bhaiya therefore argued that the FIR, having been lodged directly by the representative of the former minister, was not in accordance with law.

Can abusive social media language attract Section 67-A IT Act?

Raja Bhaiya further challenged the invocation of Section 67-A of the IT Act, which deals with punishment for publishing or transmitting electronically material containing sexually explicit acts or conduct.

The argument was that the FIR did not allege that Raja Bhaiya or the other persons had circulated any sexually explicit material.

Raja Bhaiya relied on the Supreme Court's 2024 judgment in Apoorva Arora v State (NCT of Delhi). The Supreme Court had held that Section 67-A would be attracted where electronic material contains a sexually explicit act or conduct, while "mere vulgarity, profanity, or objectionable language" would not, in the absence of sexually explicit material, by itself attract the provision.

He submitted that the allegations in the FIR only concerned abuses allegedly hurled on social media and contained no allegation of circulation of sexually explicit material.

Order

The high court did not finally decide the petition at this stage. It directed the respondents to file their counter affidavits within two weeks, with Raja Bhaiya allowed one week thereafter to file a reply.

However, after considering the submissions, the bench held that a prima facie case for interference had been made out.

"Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, prima facie a case for interference is made out," court said.

It consequently directed that the impugned FIR shall remain stayed until further orders.

The matter will be considered further after the respondents file their responses.

Case Title: Raja Singh @ Raja Bhaiya v. State of U.P. & 3 Others

Bench: Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava

Order Date: August 20, 2026