Uncivil Remark But No IPC Offence: Madras High Court Quashes FIR Over FB Post Against General Bipin Rawat

The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) has quashed an FIR registered against a man over a Facebook post made by him against Late CDS General Bipin Rawat soon after his death in the helicopter crash on December 8, 2021.

The single bench of Justice GR Swaminathan condemned the act of the accused G.Sivarajaboopathi in harsh terms but quashed the FIR observing that the post did not amount to a criminal offence under the Indian Penal Code.

The subject matter of the case was the post which said "it is disgrace to shed tears for "Dictator Bipin Rawat", the mercenary of the fascists". Based on a complaint, the Cyber Crime Police Station Nagercoil registered an FIR invoking Sections 153, 505(2) and 504 of IPC on December 15 against the author of the post and others who shared the post.

The accused approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the FIR. In the judgment delivered on January 21, the High Court analyzed each of the provisions invoked in the FIR and observed that their ingredients were absent in the case.

At the outset, Justice Swaminathan observed :  "The conduct of the petitioner would certainly outrage the moral sense of most persons. But the issue on hand must be adjudicated on the basis of an objective criteria. The only question that I should pose to myself is whether the act committed by the petitioner amounts to a cognizable offence. If the answer is in the negative, then the impugned FIR has to be quashed".

As regards Section 153 IPC, which deals with the offence of "wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot", the High Court noted :

"..the petitioner had only posted the text on his Face Book page. They are no doubt defamatory. But then, it is only the aggrieved individual who will have the locus standi to lodge a private complaint. It is not a cognizable offence. Making an uncivil remark directed against a particular individual in the social media in the facts and circumstances of the case would certainly not lead to the situation contemplated by Section 153 of IPC".

The Court added that "Who ? What ? and Where?"  is the test which is employed to determine whether the words amount to a hate speech or not can be invoked in the context of Section 153 of IPC.

Further, as regards Section 505 IPC, which deals with the offence of "Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace", the Court noted :

"..in order to attract the offence of Section 504 IPC, the accused must intentionally communicate an abuse or insult directly to the victim. In this case, the petitioner had posted the offending text in his Face Book page. The contents of one's Face Book page are primarily meant for one's "Face Book friends", though any one can access the same. Even the defacto complainant must have seen it only by chance or some body must have drawn his attention to it. Though the post was made on 08.12.2021, the complaint was lodged on 15.12.2021. Section 504 of IPC is intended to cover only one to one interactions and not a case of this nature".

Next, the Court dealt with Section 506(2) IPC, which pertains to "Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes". In this regard, the Court observed :

"The petitioner's post does not involve two groups at all. There is no reference to religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community. It has been held that unless one group is sought to be pitted against the other on the aforementioned grounds, the penal provision is not attracted".

Though the FIR was quashed on the ground that the ingredients of criminal offences were absent, Justice Swaminathan criticized the conduct of the petitioner.

"I want the petitioner to read the final Chapter of Mahabharata. All the characters are dead. Yudhishthira is the last to go. When he entered the heaven, he was shocked to see Duryodhana seated happily. Filled with rage, he uttered harsh words. Narada smilingly told him "It should not be so, Yudhishthira!. While residing in Heaven, all enmities cease. Do not say so about king Duryodhana". I do not know the petitioner's ideological background. I guess that he must be allergic to the national epic.

I therefore have a quotation for him from Thirukkural - "The evil of hatred is not of a nature to be desired by one even in sport."

"While the petitioner is entitled to criticise the legacy of the late General, the way he has reacted to the General's death is not in consonance with Tamil Culture. I have nothing more to say", Justice Swaminathan said in conclusion.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 30

Click here to read/download the judgment