Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Case Over Alleged Facebook Post Insulting Nabi Paigambar

The Allahabad High Court recently refused to quash criminal proceedings against a man facing trial for an alleged Facebook post said to insult Nabi Paigamber and hurt the religious sentiments of the Muslim community. Court held that the material collected during the investigation disclosed a prima facie case and did not warrant interference.

Manish Tiwari approached the high court under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to set aside the charge sheet filed on 5 January 2025, as well as the Magistrate’s order taking cognizance and summoning him on 3 July 2025. An FIR was lodged at Chopan police station in Sonbhadra, where the local Sub-Inspector accused Tiwari of publishing a post that triggered resentment within the community.

Before the high court, Tiwari denied making the post and claimed someone known to him might have used his mobile number to upload the remarks. He argued that the Magistrate acted mechanically in taking cognizance and that the entire case was a result of false implication.

The State opposed the plea and argued that the questions raised by the applicant could be examined only during trial and not in quashing proceedings.

After reviewing the case record, the court noted that the language used in the alleged post appeared deliberate and capable of outraging religious feelings.

"The words employed in the post clearly, are ones made with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of a particular section of the community or a class of citizens of the country. At this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant," court noted.

It held that this was sufficient to justify the Magistrate’s decision to summon the accused.

Further, court added that whether Tiwari actually made the post or whether someone else misused his number were factual questions requiring evidence and could not be decided at the pre-trial stage. "In proceeding u/s 528 BNSS, this Court is not inclined to hold mini-trial," the single judge bench said.

Court further clarified that at the stage of issuing summons, the sole requirement is to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed, not whether the evidence is strong enough to secure conviction. Citing Supreme Court judgments including S.W. Palanitkar and Others v. State of Bihar and Another (2002), and Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another; (2012), the judge observed that a detailed evaluation of evidence is beyond the scope of proceedings under Section 528 BNSS.

"It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS are to be exercised sparingly and with caution, primarily to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice," court emphasised.

Concluding that no exceptional circumstance existed for exercising its inherent powers, the high court dismissed Tiwari’s application and allowed the trial to continue.

Case Title: Manish Tiwari vs State of UP and Another

Order Date: December 2, 2025

Bench: Justice Saurabh Srivastava