Madhya Pradesh HC Declines Relief To Journalist Booked Over WhatsApp Message Suggesting Beef Eating Was Integral To Hindu Rituals

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has declined to quash a First Information Report registered against a journalist accused of circulating a message on WhatsApp that described beef consumption as integral to being a “good Hindu” and claimed that members of the Brahmin community historically consumed bovine meat.

Holding that such allegations, taken at their face value, disclose prima facie ingredients of cognizable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Court refused to interfere at the threshold and held that the issues raised by the petitioner required factual investigation rather than judicial examination in writ jurisdiction.

Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke, noted that the impugned communication formed part of a seven page message forwarded within a WhatsApp group titled “B P Bauddh Patrakar News Group.”

The petitioner was the sole administrator of the group and the only person authorised to post content. The FIR alleged that the message contained assertions on ancient rituals, bull sacrifices, obligatory meat offerings on particular occasions, and references to Brahmins allegedly consuming beef, all of which, according to the complainant, were derogatory, misleading, and capable of hurting religious sentiments.

The Bench recorded that the prosecution claimed the content had the potential to disturb communal harmony, and therefore constituted a cognizable offence on the face of the FIR.

In addressing the legal challenge, the Court reiterated the well-settled principle that the scope of judicial review at the FIR stage is limited. It emphasised that quashing of an FIR is an exception and not the rule, permissible only when the allegations do not disclose the commission of any offence, or where the complaint is manifestly absurd, inherently improbable, or motivated by demonstrable mala fides.

The Court relied on the governing parameters laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, which mandate that High Courts must refrain from evaluating evidence, examining defences, or embarking on inquiries regarding the truthfulness of allegations while an investigation is ongoing.

It was further observed that courts cannot conduct a “roving enquiry” into academic context, intention behind the post, or the petitioner’s claim of good-faith scholarly discussion at this preliminary juncture.

The factual background presented in the FIR showed that the complainant, a resident of Bhind district, received information on the night of 26.09.2025 regarding the message posted by the petitioner.

The complaint alleged that members of the WhatsApp group, several of whom belonged to the Hindu and Brahmin communities, were deeply offended by the assertions made in the message.

It was further alleged that the petitioner alone exercised control over the dissemination of content within the closed group.

Based on the complaint, Police Station Daboh registered FIR No. 143/2025 under Sections 196(1)(b), 299, 353(1)(c) and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

In his writ petition under Article 226, the journalist argued that the forwarded content was merely an extract from a published book authored by Dr. Surendra Kumar Sharma (Agyaat). According to him, the material was sourced from publicly available academic literature and was shared within a private, voluntarily accessed group as part of journalistic and scholarly discourse. He submitted that the group’s purpose was to discuss counter narratives, current affairs and ideas, and therefore his act fell squarely within the protection of Article 19(1)(a).

The petitioner alleged that the FIR was motivated, retaliatory and connected to his past reporting on alleged police misconduct in the district, asserting that the registration of the FIR was an attempt to suppress dissent and muzzle critical journalism.

He also stressed the absence of mens rea, arguing that none of the essential ingredients required for offences under Sections 196 or 299 of the BNS were satisfied on the face of the complaint.

The State opposed the petition, submitting that the allegations in the FIR clearly pointed to intentional circulation of content capable of outraging religious feelings and disturbing public tranquillity.

It argued that the petitioner’s reliance on academic purpose, absence of malice, and claims of honest quotation from a literary work were questions requiring appreciation of evidence, and thus premised on disputed facts.

These, the State contended, could not be adjudicated at the FIR stage.

The State further argued that the accusations contained in the FIR were sufficiently detailed to justify an investigation, and that any assessment of motive, whether retaliatory or otherwise, could not form the basis for quashing.

After considering the submissions, the Court held that the issues raised by the petitioner, such as whether the content was academic, whether he acted in good faith, whether his message was capable of disturbing harmony, and whether the FIR was a counterblast, were all factual matters.

These, the Court said, must be tested during investigation and cannot form grounds for premature quashing.

Since the FIR disclosed prima facie ingredients of the offences invoked, the Court dismissed the petition and permitted the investigation to proceed.

Case Title: Buddha Prakash Bouddha v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others

Bench: Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke

Date of Judgment: 19.11.2025