Abusive Words Used For A Religion: Bombay HC Refuses To Quash FIR Over Banner Condemning Gangster Atiq Ahmed's Murder

The Bombay High Court recently refused to quash criminal proceedings against a printing press owner and his employee who allegedly printed and publicly displayed a banner condemning the 2023 killings of Gangsters Atiq Ahmed and Ashraf Ahmed.

Justice Neeraj P. Dhote, sitting at the Aurangabad Bench, observed that a careful reading of the banner's text revealed a reference to a specific religion and abusive words are used against it, thereby making out a prima facie case for promoting enmity and hurting religious sentiments.

What are the allegations?

According to the prosecution’s story, a 15 by 10-foot colored flex banner was displayed at Dr Ambedkar's square in Majalgaon, a public place, condemning the April 2023 killings of Gangsters Atiq Ahmed and Ashraf Ahmed in police custody in Uttar Pradesh.

The banner allegedly targeted the Hindu community using abusive language. The exact transcription of the text, as reproduced in the court order, reads as follows:

“Murder of Atiq, Death of Democracy, they are not Hindus, they are cowards/faggots [g***u].

Murdering democracy in broad daylight by firing bullets in police custody, public condemnation!.... public condemnation!.... public condemnation!

You have hunted a lion locked in a cage... ever try hunting a free lion, your generations will be destroyed, Insha'Allah”

The accused were booked under Sections 153A, 188, 294, 295A, 298, and 505(2) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

The State alleged that the banner contained statements and obscene words directed at a religion with the intention of creating disharmony, enmity, and hatred between two religious communities.

During the inquiry, it was revealed that Applicant No. 1 (Shaikh Wajed) had printed the material at his printing press, while Applicant No. 2 (Shaikh Nasir) had pasted and displayed it at the public square.

'Merely Acting on Instructions'

Seeking relief, the accused moved the High Court arguing that they had merely printed and displayed the banner at the behest of two other co-accused.

To support their plea for quashing the FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings, they relied on recent Supreme Court judgments, including Javed Ahmad Hajam vs. State of Maharashtra and Imran Pratapgadhi vs. State of Gujarat.

They argued that taking the prosecution's case at face value, no penal case was made out against them.

Mr. M.L. Sangit, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) opposed the plea, stating that the specific words on the flex clearly attracted offences relating to hurting religious sentiments.

The State argued that the printing and display of such matters show that they had knowledge that the same would attract the penal provisions for hurting religious sentiments.

‘Prima Facie Case Made Out’

Justice Dhote rejected the applicants' contentions and reliance on the cited judgments reliance as he noted that the facts of those cases were entirely different and offered no assistance at this stage.

Considering the contents of the flex, the Court noted that the incident of the deaths in U.P. was indeed condemned, but the text went further.

"A careful reading of the messages or the words on the flex...shows that, there is reference of one religion and abusive words towards that religion. The said material, if taken as it is, makes out a prima facie case", the Bench observed.

On the arguments that the applicants were merely the printer and the displayer, the Court said that they still bore legal responsibility.

"Prima facie, knowledge that the printing and display of the said flex would hurt the religious feelings of one religion is attributable to the Applicants," the Court held.

Concluding that the High Court is not required to conduct a mini-trial or undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence on record during quashing proceedings, Bombay HC found sufficient prima facie material against the accused and dismissed their application.

Case Title: Shaikh Wajed and Anr v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Date of Order: June 18, 2026

Bench: Justice Neeraj P. Dhote