Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court, while quashing an FIR, has recently observed that people have become more sensitive about their religion.

The division bench of the high court at Nagpur, comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Vrushali Joshi, was hearing a petition filed by an army technician and a medical practitioner seeking to quash the FIR filed against them for outraging the religious sentiments of Muslims.

Shahbaz Siddique, in his complaint, stated that he was added to a WhatsApp group named 'Narkhed Ghadamodi' wherein certain outrageous remarks were made against the Muslim community.

The complaint also stated that a message in the group said that Muslims who do not say "Vande Mataram" should go to Pakistan.

The division bench, while quashing the FIR, said that nowadays everybody wants to impress others as to how their god is supreme.

“We are constrained to observe that now-a-days people have become more sensitive about their religions may be than before and everybody wants to impress as to how his religion/God is Supreme,” the order states.

The bench further noted that in a democratic and secular country, everyone should respect the religion of the other.

“We are staying in a democratic secular country, where everybody should respect the religion, caste, creed etc. of another. But at the same time, we would also say that if the person says that his religion is Supreme, then the other person may not immediately react. There are ways and means to react on such sensitive issues,” the order states.

The high court in its order also stated that the police adopted a "pick and choose" method, wherein out of the 150-200 people in the group, statements were taken from only 4 persons, all of whom belonged to the Muslim community.

“Taking the note of the evidence i.e. collected, we are of the opinion that the Investigating Authority had adopted a ‘pick and choose’ method and recorded the statements of only those witnesses who are from the same community of the informant, when the group consisted of more than 150 to 200 members from the Hindu and Muslim Communities,” the order states.

Therefore, the high court quashed the FIR while recording that “It is not stated in the charge-sheet and/or FIR how many of the members of Muslims. Only four witnesses and one informant cannot be counted as ‘class’ as contemplated in Section 295A of the IPC. We are of the opinion that the offence under Section 295A of the IPC is not transpiring from the contents of the FIR, together with the material collected in the charge-sheet,” the order reads.

Case title: Promad Shinde vs State of Maharashtra