Chhattisgarh HC Refuses To Quash FIR Over 'Hindu Is An Abuse' Remarks Made At Public Meeting

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently refused to quash criminal proceedings against certain social activists booked for allegedly claiming that the word 'Hindu' is an 'abuse' that denotes 'thieves' and 'dacoits', during a 2024 public gathering.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal said that contentions regarding the right to dissent, legitimate criticism, and free speech cannot be evaluated at the threshold stage under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482, CrPC) and must instead be tested during a full-fledged trial.

The bench was also of the view that the absence of any actual communal disturbance, violence, or public disorder was, by itself, sufficient to terminate the prosecution at the threshold.

What are the allegations? 'Hindu Is An Abuse'

The criminal proceedings began after a First Information Report (FIR) was filed on February 28, 2024, following a written complaint by a Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) member at the Kunkuri Police Station in Jashpur District.

According to the prosecution, the eleven petitioners attended a public meeting organized by the Bharat Mukti Morcha and Rashtriya Christian Morcha at the Saliyatoli Mini Stadium on February 27, 2024.

The prosecution alleged that during this gathering, several speakers made highly inflammatory statements, including:

• Describing the term "Hindu" as denoting a "thief, dacoit, robber and slave".

• Asserting that "Hindu is not a religion but an abuse".

• Making derogatory remarks targeting religious preacher Dhirendra Shastri and the Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh.

• Exhorting the crowd to break Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and demanding that elections should not be conducted using them.

Following the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against them and a Judicial Magistrate framed charges under Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, 505(2), 294, and 34 IPC.

Additional Sessions Judge, Kunkuri, subsequently affirmed these charges in their revision plea. Therefore, they approached the High Court for quashment.

'Free Speech' and 'Scientific Temper' defence

The petitioners, claiming association with social organizations working for marginalized sections, argued that their statements were merely expressions of views on social and political issues.

They contended that their right to dissent and criticise prevailing beliefs is protected under the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

They also argued that their statements aligned with the constitutional duty to develop a scientific temper and promote social reform under Article 51A(h).

Furthermore, they submitted that there was a complete absence of deliberate or malicious intent required to attract offences like Section 295A (outraging religious feelings) or Sections 153A and 153B (promoting enmity). 

What did the High Court say?

The Division Bench rejected the petitioners' argument, pointing out the limited and extraordinary scope of the Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.

The Court observed that assessing whether the statements constituted legitimate criticism or crossed the threshold into penal conduct requires an appreciation of the context, the audience, and the likely impact.

The bench emphasised that whether these allegations are ultimately established and whether the requisite mens rea for the offences alleged is proved are matters that can only be adjudicated upon after evidence is led before the trial Court.

Significantly, the division bench added that the allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during the investigation could not be said to be so absurd, inherently improbable or wholly devoid of substance as to warrant the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

"The material collected during investigation prima facie indicates that during a public gathering attended by a large number of persons, including members of different communities, certain statements were allegedly made concerning the Hindu religion, religious personalities and the electoral process" the Bench observed.

The Court also found the prosecution's case to be backed by concrete documentary and electronic evidence, including pamphlets, videography of the event accompanied by a Section 65-B Evidence Act certificate, and witness statements, proving it was not based on mere "conjectures or surmises".

Concluding that the allegations disclosed a prima facie case requiring judicial adjudication, the High Court dismissed the petition, clarifying that its observations would have no bearing on the final merits of the impending trial.

Case Title: Sunil Kumar Xalxo and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others

Date of Order: June 17, 2026

Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal