Compromise Not Enough To Quash FIR Over Video On Hindu Deities, Threat To Communal Harmony: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to quash a 2019 FIR registered against a police constable accused of uploading and circulating a video relating to Hindu deities on Facebook, holding that a compromise between the accused and the complainant cannot by itself wipe out criminal proceedings touching upon communal harmony and public order.

Justice Himanshu Joshi was hearing a petition filed by Soma Singh Dhurve, a Constable (T.M.) posted in the Police Radio Department, Jabalpur, seeking quashment of FIR registered at Police Station Kotwali, Mandla, along with all consequential proceedings. The FIR had been lodged on a complaint by Sonal Barman, who alleged that Dhurve, along with other co-accused, had uploaded, shared and circulated a video concerning Hindu deities in a manner that hurt religious sentiments and could trigger disharmony between communities. The case was registered under Sections 295-A, 153-A and 505(2) IPC, provisions dealing with acts intended to outrage religious feelings, promote enmity between groups, and statements conducive to public mischief.

The petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, provisions that let the High Court exercise inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings. Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Chhoti Kushram told the court that Dhurve had been falsely implicated and that there was no direct or legally admissible evidence to show he had intentionally uploaded or circulated any objectionable material with the deliberate intent required under the relevant IPC provisions. It was submitted that the material was allegedly shared from a mobile device, and in the absence of clinching proof of criminal intent, the prosecution could not sustain the charges.

A significant plank of the petitioner's case was that the complainant himself no longer wished to pursue the matter. During the pendency of proceedings, Dhurve and the complainant arrived at an amicable settlement, with the complainant filing an affidavit stating the dispute had arisen out of a misunderstanding and that he did not wish to continue with the case. It was also pointed out that Dhurve, being a government employee, faced departmental proceedings and a charge-sheet on account of the criminal case, and continuing the prosecution despite the compromise would only cause him further prejudice.

Opposing the plea, Government Advocate Priyanka Mishra, appearing for the State, argued that the offences alleged were not private disputes between two individuals but ones affecting public order, communal harmony and religious sentiments, and could not be extinguished merely because the complainant had chosen to compromise. It was submitted that the investigation had thrown up prima facie material against the petitioner, and the truthfulness of the allegations was a matter to be tested at trial rather than short-circuited at the quashment stage.

The court sided with the State. Justice Joshi observed that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS (Section 482, CrPC), the court must weigh not merely the complainant's wishes but the "nature and gravity of the offences alleged." Noting that the offences go beyond personal wrongs, the order stated that Sections 295-A, 153-A and 505(2) IPC "have a direct bearing upon public peace, communal harmony and societal interest," and that the Supreme Court has consistently held such offences having social impact cannot ordinarily be quashed solely on the basis of a compromise.

The court also declined to go into the petitioner's claims of false implication and absence of evidence at this stage, holding these were disputed questions of fact for the trial court to examine upon appreciation of evidence, not matters that could be adjudicated in quashment proceedings. While acknowledging that the compromise could remain a relevant circumstance during trial, the bench held it was "not by itself sufficient to justify quashment of the proceedings," since the case had "an element of public interest."

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition, allowing the FIR and consequential proceedings against Dhurve to continue before the trial court.

Case Title: Soma Singh Dhurve v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: July 30, 2026

Bench: Justice Himanshu Joshi