IN THE

125

Rajat Kalsan

State of Haryana

CORAM : HON'BLE

Present :- Mr.

Mr.

for

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

CRM-50332-2025

Allowed,

well as its transcript

the applicant-petitioner

typed/translated/legible/fair

taken on record.

Main case

The

of Criminal Procedure,

Suraksha Sanhita,

29.07.2025 registered

and 62 of the Bharatiya

District Hansi,

therefrom.

2. Briefly

complaint submitted

village Budhana

mother, Smt. Krishna

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB

AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M- 53576

Date of decision:

VERSUS

Haryana and others

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD

Mr. Arjun Sheoran and

Mr. Tejasvi Sheokand, Advocates,

the petitioner.

*****

BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

2025

Allowed, as prayed for and accordingly,

transcript annexed as Annexure P-7 and

petitioner is also exempted

typed/translated/legible/fair copies of Annexures

Registry is directed to tag the same

The instant petition has been filed under

Procedure, 1973 read with Section 528

Sanhita, 2023 for seeking quashing

registered under Sections 196(1), 352,

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Haryana alongwith all consequential

Briefly stated, the present proceedings

submitted by one Sushil Kumar, son

Budhana, Police Station Narnaund. The

Krishna Devi, was murdered on 16.11.2024

PUNJAB & HARYANA

CHANDIGARH

53576-2025 (O&M)

decision: 11.12.2025

...Petitioner

...Respondents

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

accordingly, the video recording as

and P-8 is taken on record and

exempted from filing certified/

Annexures P-7 & P-8. The same are

same at an appropriate place.

under Section 482 of the Code

528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

quashing of FIR No.238 dated

352, 353(1), 353(2), 356(2), 49

at Police Station Narnaund,

consequential proceedings arising

proceedings emanate from a

son of Dharampal, resident of

The complainant stated that his

16.11.2024 at the stadium of

2

125 CRM-M-53576-2025(O&M)

village Budhana, in respect whereof FIR No. 452 of 2024 was registered at

Police Station Narnaund. It was averred that the challan in the said case has

already been presented before the competent Court and that further

investigation is being conducted by the State Crime Branch. According to

the complainant, Anoop son of Sadhu Ram, Anshu son of Suresh Kala,

Maya Devi wife of Sadhu Ramand Sadhu Ram son of Tek Ram, residents of

village Budhana, are the principal accused and during the course of further

investigation, the DNA sample of accused Anoop had matched, thereby

scientifically confirming the offence of rape in addition to murder. The

complainant further alleged that on 14.07.2025, while accessing Facebook at

his residence, he came across a video uploaded on a Facebook profile under

the name “Rajat Kalsan”, who projected himself as an Advocate. The said

video pertained to a public meeting held in front of the Hisar Mini

Secretariat, wherein statements were made containing false, defamatory and

derogatory assertions against the complainant and his family. It was alleged

that in the said meeting, Maya Devi, one of the accused in the murder and

rape case, was given a platform to address the gathering and the crowd was

exhorted to extend support to the accused persons. The complainant alleged

that the said Rajat Kalsan thereafter addressed the gathering and made

statements to the effect that the murder of Krishna Devi had been committed

by her own family members on account of a property dispute; that the

accused persons had been falsely implicated by villagers of Budhana after

collecting money and by bribing senior police officers; that false allegations

had been levelled against the accused to exert pressure for compromise in

another incident and that the residents of village Budhana were portrayed as

casteist goons, despicable and criminals. Moreover, the accused in the

3

125 CRM-M-53576-2025(O&M)

murder and rape case were projected as innocent and public support was

solicited in their favour. On these assertions, the complainant alleged that

Rajat Kalsan had indulged in acts amounting to criminal defamation,

interference with the administration of justice, influencing the investigation

and the Court, inciting public disorder, maligning the police machinery by

portraying it as corrupt and misusing the legal profession by projecting

himself as an Advocate while glorifying accused persons involved in

heinous offences such as murder and rape. It was further alleged that such

conduct had the effect of tarnishing the image of the complainant, the

victims, the investigating agencies, and the village at large. On the basis of

the aforesaid allegations, the complainant sought registration of a criminal

case against Rajat Kalsan and prayed for strict legal action.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner

was acting in his professional capacity as a counsel for the accused Maya

Devi in FIR No. 452 dated 16.11.2024, registered under the relevant

provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Narnaund

and was merely discharging his professional obligation to defend the

interests of his client. He submits that the complainant party harbours

animosity towards the petitioner solely on account of such professional

engagement, hence the present FIR has been lodged as a retaliatory measure,

in collusion with the local police machinery. Learned counsel submits that

the allegations contained in the FIR are vague, sweeping and generalized

and fail to disclose the essential ingredients of any cognizable offence. It is

further contended that the speech attributed to the petitioner cannot be

construed as a provocative or incendiary speech capable of inciting violence

or public disorder, as no specific words, expressions or statements have been

4

125 CRM-M-53576-2025(O&M)

attributed to the petitioner as would prima facie satisfy the offences under

Sections 196(1), 353(1), or 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

4. It is submitted with vehemence that the petitioner cannot be

divested of his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression as

guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and that the

registration of the present case is a targeted attempt to penalise the petitioner

for expressing his views and for giving voice to what he perceives as

atrocities committed against his clients. He also submits that the initiation of

the criminal proceedings is a clear abuse of the process of law and that the

FIR along with all consequential proceedings deserves to be quashed.

5. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the

petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in

Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat and another, reported as 2025 SCC

Online SC 678. The relevant extract thereof reads as under:-

“9. A broad English translation of the said poem reads thus:

“Those who are blood thirsty, listen to us

If the fight for our rights is met with injustice

We will meet that injustice with love

If the drops flowing from a candle are like a flame

(Analogy : if the tears from our face are like a flame) We

will use it to light up all paths

If the bodies of our loved ones are a threat to your throne

We swear by God that we will bury our loved ones

happily

Those who are blood thirsty, listen to us.”

10. On plain reading of the original Urdu version and its

English translation, the following conclusions can be drawn:

a) This poem has nothing to do with any religion,

community, region or race;

5

125 CRM-M-53576-2025(O&M)

b) By no stretch of imagination, the contents affect national

integration;

c) It does not jeopardise the sovereignty, unity, integrity or

security of India;

d) It suggests that while fighting to secure our rights if we

are met with injustice, we will face it with love. We will

use our tears as flames to light up all paths;

e) It gives a warning to the throne (the rulers). It states that

if the bodies of our loved ones are a threat to the rulers,

we will bury our loved ones happily;

f) It preaches non-violence. It says that if the fight for our

rights is met with injustice, we will meet injustice with

love. This gives a message that injustice should not be

retaliated, but it should be met with love;

g) The poem refers to the throne in the context of the fight

against injustice. The reference to the throne is symbolic.

It is a reference to an entity which is responsible for

causing injustice. It gives a warning that if the bodies of

loved ones are a threat to the throne, we will happily

accept the deaths of our loved ones. It suggests that one

should be willing to sacrifice life in the fight against

injustice; and

h) Thus, the poem does not encourage violence. On the

contrary, it encourages people to desist from resorting to

violence and to face injustice with love. It states that if

our fight with injustice results into the death of our near

and dear ones, we would be happy to bury their bodies.

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

12. The poem does not refer to any religion, caste or

language. It does not refer to persons belonging to any

religion. By no stretch of imagination, does it promote

enmity between different groups. We fail to understand

6

125 CRM-M-53576-2025(O&M)

how the statements therein are detrimental to national

unity and how the statements will affect national unity.

On its plain reading, the poem does not purport to affect

anyone's religious feelings.

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

41. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, this Court was

examining the vires of Section 66A of the Information

Technology Act, 2000 which provided for punishment for

sending offensive messages through communication

service etc. In the above context the Bench referred to

Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(2), Preamble to

the Constitution of India and the previous decisions of

this Court and after a threadbare analysis observed that

when it comes to democracy, liberty of thought and

expression is a cardinal value that is of paramount

significance under our constitutional scheme. It is one of

the most basic human rights.

42. Following is the summary of our conclusions:

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

(iii) In case of the offence punishable under Section 196

of the BNS to decide whether the words, either spoken

or written or by sign or by visible representations or

through electronic communication or otherwise, lead

to the consequences provided in the Section, the police

officer to whom information is furnished will have to

read or hear the words written or spoken, and by

taking the same as correct, decide whether an offence

under Section 196 is made out. Reading of written

words, or hearing spoken words will be necessary to

determine whether the contents make out a case of the

commission of a cognizable offence. The same is the

7

125 CRM-M-53576-2025(O&M)

case with offences punishable under Sections 197, 299

and 302 of BNS. Therefore, to ascertain whether the

information received by an officer-in-charge of the

police station makes out a cognizable offence, the

officer must consider the meaning of the spoken or

written words. This act on the part of the police officer

will not amount to making a preliminary inquiry

which is not permissible under sub-Section (1) of

Section 173.

(iv) The police officers must abide by the Constitution

and respect its ideals. The philosophy of

the Constitution and its ideals can be found in the

preamble itself. The preamble lays down that the

people of India have solemnly resolved to constitute

India into a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic

republic and to secure all its citizens liberty of

thought, expression, belief, faith and worship.

Therefore, liberty of thought and expression is one of

the ideals of our Constitution. Article 19(1)(a) confers

a fundamental right on all citizens to freedom of

speech and expression. The police machinery is a part

of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of

the Constitution. Moreover, the police officers being

citizens, are bound to abide by the Constitution. They

are bound to honour and uphold freedom of speech

and expression conferred on all citizens.

(v) Clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution carves out

an exception to the fundamental right guaranteed

under sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of Article 19. If

there is a law covered by clause (2), its operation

remains unaffected by sub-clause (a) of clause (1). We

must remember that laws covered by the clause (2)

are protected by way of an exception provided they

impose a reasonable restriction. Therefore, when an

allegation is of the commission of an offence covered

8

125 CRM-M-53576-2025(O&M)

by the law referred to in clause (2) of Article 19, if

sub-Section (3) of Section 173 is applicable, it is

always appropriate to conduct a preliminary inquiry

to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out to

proceed against the accused. This will ensure that the

fundamental rights guaranteed under sub-clause (a) of

clause (1) of Article 19 remain protected. Therefore,

in such cases, the higher police officer referred to in

sub-Section (3) of Section 173 must normally grant

permission to the police officer to conduct a

preliminary inquiry.

(vi) When an offence punishable under Section 196 of

BNS is alleged, the effect of the spoken or written

words will have to be considered based on standards

of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous

individuals and not based on the standards of people

with weak and oscillating minds. The effect of the

spoken or written words cannot be judged on the basis

of the standards of people who always have a sense of

insecurity or of those who always perceive criticism as

a threat to their power or position.

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

(emphasis supplied)”

6. He further places reliance on the judgment passed in the matter

of ‘Balwant Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab’ reported as (1995) 3

SCC 214. Relevant extract thereof reads thus:-

“9. Insofar as the offence under Section 153-A IPC is

concerned, it provides for punishment for promoting enmity

between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of

birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other

ground whatsoever or brings about disharmony or feeling of

hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, linguistic

9

125 CRM-M-53576-2025(O&M)

or regional groups or castes or communities. In our opinion

only where the written or spoken words have the tendency or

intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and

order or affect public tranquillity, that the law needs to step in

to prevent such an activity. The facts and circumstances of this

case unmistakably show that there was no disturbance or

semblance of disturbance of law and order or of public order or

peace and tranquillity in the area from where the appellants

were apprehended while raising slogans on account of the

activities of the appellants. The intention to cause disorder or

incite people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence under

Section 153-A IPC and the prosecution has to prove the

existence of mens rea in order to succeed. In this case, the

prosecution has not been able to establish any mens rea on the

part of the appellants, as envisaged by the provisions of Section

153-A IPC, by their raising casually the three slogans a couple

of times. The offence under Section 153-A IPC is, therefore, not

made out.”

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner and have gone through the documents appended along with the

present petition including the extract of the speech attributed to the

petitioner, which has laid the foundation for the registration of the impugned

FIR. The relevant extract reads thus:-

“Rajat: She has two small children, they work as goat and

sheep herders, in the village of Budhana. If I speak now. people

will say that I target one caste. Those very people murdered a

woman over a family property dispute and framed her (Maya

Devi's) small children, one 14 years old and one 19 years old.

The entire village collected donations and gave lakhs of rupees

to the SP of Hansi and the DSP of Narnaund just for this one

10

125 CRM-M-53576-2025(O&M)

thing: that the murder case be filed against her small children

instead of the real killers. Do you know what her (Maya Devi's)

fault is? Her (Maya Devi's) son was attacked in 2021; accusing

him of stealing a chicken, those casteist thugs beat her son all

night long and shoved a stick in his rear. She (Maya Devi) had

the courage to file an SC and ST case against them. They are

killing two birds with one stone. They think that she (Maya

Devi) will withdraw the case under pressure, and they pinned

the murder they committed on her (Maya Devi's) head. Can you

imagine how vile and contemptible the people who did this must

be? Can people who herd sheep and goats do such a thing?”

आपस म
P अपने प
/रवार की
nॉपट
N िववाद म
P मिहला की हा करदी और इस

को लाखो
\पये िदये के वल इस काम के िलए, की जो मड
Jर का जो मुकदमा है वो

मुग
N चोरी का आरोप लगा कर सारी रात् उन जाती वादी गुंडों ने इसके बेटे को

उनके
0खलाफ SC and ST पचा
J दज
J करवाने की, एक तीर से दो िशकार कर रहे

है, वो सोच रहे है की वो (maya devi) मुक़दमा वापस लेलेगी दबाव म
P और जो

उN

ोंने

मड
Jर िकया था इसके (maya devi) के सर पर डाल िदया, सोच सकते हो

िकतने नीच जलील लोग

होंगे

िजN

ोंने

ऐसा काम िकया है। भेड़ बकरी चराने वाले

11

125 CRM-M-53576-2025(O&M)

सािथयो हमारे बीच म
S हमारे साथी मह
P
k िबधूड़ी आये है लोहा
] से म
S इनको भी

समय देना चाहता
a की ये भी अपनी बात रख
P”

8. In the said background, it would now be relevant also to refer to

the statutory provisions under which the FIR herein has been registered

against the petitioner. Section 196(1) reads thus:-

“196. Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of

religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and

doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony:-

(1) Whoever-

(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by

visible representations or through electronic

communication or otherwise, promotes or attempts to

promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth,

residence, language, caste or community or any other

ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity,

hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial,

language or regional groups or castes or communities; or

(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance

of harmony between different religious, racial, language or

regional groups or castes or communities, and which

disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity; or

(c) organises any exercise, movement, drill or other similar

activity intending that the participants in such activity shall

use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or

knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity

will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or

participates in such activity intending to use or be trained

to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely

that the participants in such activity will use or be trained

to use criminal force or violence, against any religious,

racial, language or regional group or caste or community

and such activity for any reason whatsoever causes or is

likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity

amongst members of such religious, racial, language or

12

125 CRM-M-53576-2025(O&M)

regional group or caste or community, shall be punished

with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with

fine, or with both.”

(emphasis supplied)

9. Section 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 reads as

under:-

"352. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace-

Whoever intentionally insults in any manner, and thereby gives

provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely

that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or

to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment

of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or

with fine, or with both.”

(emphasis supplied)

10. Section 353 (1) and 353 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

reads as under:-

"353. Statements conducing to public mischief. (1) Whoever

makes, publishes or circulates any statement, false information,

rumour, or report, including through electronic means-

(a) xxx xxx xxx

(b) xxx xxx xxx

(c) with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite, any

class or community of persons to commit any offence

against any other class or community, shall be punished

with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with

fine, or with both.”

(2) Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or

report containing false information, rumour or alarming news,

including through electronic means, with intent to create or

promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of

religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or

community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity,

hatred or ill will between different religious, racial, language or

regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with

13

125 CRM-M-53576-2025(O&M)

imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or

with both.”

(emphasis supplied)

11. Section 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 reads as

under:-

"(2) Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple

imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with

fine, or with both, or with community service."

12. Taking note of the growing tendency among individuals and

groups to employ provocative and inflammatory expressions, often couched

in insinuations or slender remarks, against particular sections of society with

the object of fomenting discord and hatred, the legislature has incorporated

stringent provisions in the criminal law to curb such conduct. In this

backdrop, Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter

referred to as “the BNS”) assumes significance.

13. It is evident from the above that in so far as the offence under

Section 196(1)(a) would be committed if the following ingredients are

satisfied:-

(i) The person, by words, either spoken or written etc.;

(ii) promotes or attempts to promote on grounds of religion,

region, race, caste or community;

(iii) disharmony or feelings of enmity or ill-will between

different groups as above.

Similarly for commission of offence under Section 196(1)(b), if

the Act was prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony on above grounds

and which disturbs or is likely to disturb public tranquility.

14

125 CRM-M-53576-2025(O&M)

14. In order to ascertain as to whether offence under the Section is

made out or not, the internal and external circumstances have to be seen in

totality alongwith the words and expression and gestures used in a speech or

communication before it may be determined as to whether it has the

potential to promote disharmony or feelings of ill-will/hatred amongst

communities or caste groups etc. The words and gestures etc. or the speech

has to be considered in the context, the place, the background as well as the

local sentiment and the social circumstances alongwith the mental

framework of the people addressed or spoken to. Ignoring any of these

factors invariably impacts or alters the meaning/intention behind the words.

15. To illustrate, use of curses or abusive words or language

between friends in common conversation may just be a light meaningless

and unintended figure of speech, while the same words and expressions may

trigger violence under a separate set of circumstances.

16. The external circumstances would generally require evidence to

be led and may not be inferred just from written words, alone, in a petition.

The emphasis, thus, is not merely on the form of expression but also on its

probable impact on social harmony and public order.

17. Similarly, Section 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

addresses acts of provocation which are committed either with the intent to

or with the knowledge that such conduct is likely to, provoke a breach of

public peace or to occasion the commission of an offence. The provision is

aimed at penalising conduct which, by its very nature, has the tendency to

disturb societal order and tranquillity, even if the actual commission of a

further offence does not immediately ensue.

15

125 CRM-M-53576-2025(O&M)

18. Section 353(1)(c) of the BNS further criminalises the making of

statements, giving false information or circulation of rumours which are

likely to incite any class or community of persons to commit an offence

against another class or community or which are of such a nature that they

are likely to cause fear or alarm to the public, thereby inducing any person to

commit an offence against the State or against public tranquillity. In addition

thereto, Section 353(2) of the BNS provides that whoever makes, publishes

or circulates any statement, whether orally, in writing or through electronic

or digital means, with the intent to create or promote or which is likely to

create or promote, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different

religious groups, castes or communities, shall be liable to be punished in

accordance with law. The inclusion of electronic and digital modes of

communication underscores the influence of social media and online

platforms in amplifying divisive narratives and the need to regulate such

conduct in the interest of maintaining public harmony and order.

19. The above show that any such speech which may, in

knowledge, cause or provoke breach of peace would attract the penal

consequences under Section 352 of BNS. Similarly, when any statement or

false information has the capacity to incite any class or community to

commit offence against the other and further its publication and circulation

constitute offences under Section 353(1) & (2) BNS respectively.

20. The use of expressions such as “attempts to promote”;

“disharmony or feeling of hatred or ill will”; “likely to disturb public

tranquility”; “gives provocation”; ‘likely that such provocation cause him to

break public peace”; “likely to incite” etc. are consciously invoked in the

legislation. While the legislature certainly did not propose or intended an

16

125 CRM-M-53576-2025(O&M)

abuse of the provision, it certainly aimed to check attempts by mischievous

people to spread ill-will, promote disharmony, incite people etc. to commit a

breach of peace. These sections thus penalize the attempt of such a

consequence without awaiting for the consequences. The necessity for the

same arose since legislature is aware that while violence germinating from

hatred – in the form of hate crimes, may have a long incubation period, the

seed for potential commission are sown by prolonged/momentary exposure

to information/material fed in public mind, over a period of time. Hence a

followed outburst of hate crime, in close proximity, is not the pre-requisite

for the above offence but its potential to create hatred and possibility of

breach of public harmony or peace becomes the most crucial factor. The

intent being that every citizen speaks with responsibility and with awareness

about the consequences of what he speaks on a public platform, the spoken

words, expression, phrases and other external factors need to be taken into

consideration. The principal that law should step into the shoes of the

accused applies in all its consequences. It is not just a provision of

benevolence only or may also be provision for discussing the intent.

21. Petitioner further submits that his Right to Freedom and Speech

has been curtailed as guaranteed to him under Article 19(1)(a) of

Constitution of India. The same reads thus:-

“19. All citizens shall have the right-

(a) to freedom of speech and expression”

22. Pertinently, the said rights have to be read alongwith Article

19(2) of the Constitution of India. The same reads thus:

“(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the

operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making

any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions

17

125 CRM-M-53576-2025(O&M)

on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in

the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the

security of the State, friendly relations with Foreign States,

public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of

court, defamation or incitement to an offence.”

23. Hence, without disputing that every citizen enjoys the

fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, however, such right

is not unfettered. The Constitution itself envisages reasonable restrictions on

the exercise of this freedom, as may be imposed by law in the interests of

public order, decency, morality and the sovereignty and integrity of the

nation. These restrictions seek to balance individual liberties with the larger

societal interest in maintaining harmony, tranquility and the rule of law.

24. The preservation of public tranquility, social order and national

security has always constituted a legitimate and relevant consideration for

the State and its instrumentalities to initiate action where the exercise of

such freedom transgresses the permissible constitutional boundaries.

25. In the said background, now the speech addressed by the

petitioner alongwith the factual background as well as the judgment relied

upon by the counsel for the petitioner are being adverted to.

26. It is now relevant to observe that the congregation of public is

alleged to have been organized in relation to FIR No.452/2024 pertaining to

murder of Smt. Krishna Devi on 16.11.2024. The final report was filed

against Anoop s/o Sadhu, Anshu s/o Suresh, Maya Devi w/o Sadhu and

Sadhu Ram s/o Tek Ram, all belonging to Scheduled Caste Community

(Dhanak). The petitioner claims himself to be an activist against oppression

of a disadvantaged segment and marginalized persons. The meeting in

question had been held on 14.07.2025 i.e. after nearly 08 months of the

18

125 CRM-M-53576-2025(O&M)

incident and that too at the Mini Secretariat, Hisar. Investigation had already

been concluded and chargesheet had already been filed. The counsel for the

petitioner however does not disclose about the socio-economic background

of the audience, the organizational objective, the relationship of audience

with the accused, the caste or community of the audience, any prior history

of class/community feud or not. The same would be relevant consideration

to ascertain the true purpose and object of the gathering can only be

ascertained then. The same would usually give rise to disputed questions of

fact.

27. Be that as it may, some of the extracts of the speech are

reproduced as under:-

Maya Devi:- I have come to you all so that you all support. I am

your daughter…….I want all of your support. Jai Jai Jai Jai

Bhim.

Rajat:- If I speak now, people will say I target one caste.

 The entire village collected donations and gave lakhs of

rupees to the SP of Hansi and DSP of Narnaund.

 Those casteist thugs beat her son…..

 3

rd

person:- Saluting the ideology of all great saint and

great men born in Bahujan Society.

 to all my……….. who have come to this protest today, a

revolutionary Jai Bhim.

28. It is evident from above that the meeting had been convened of

people belonging to a specific caste, to garner support and protest and with

revolutionary greetings. In a congregation of such gathering, the petitioner is

stated to have uttered remarks of caste and casteist thugs and leveling

allegations of scandalous bribery against police officials.

19

125 CRM-M-53576-2025(O&M)

29. It is evident from the perusal of the same that the petitioner

opened a speech by making a reference that people would accuse him of

targeting a “specific caste.”

30. Undisputedly and particularly in a rural or hinterland setting,

speeches and public utterances must be appreciated in the social, cultural

and situational context in which they are delivered. The audience addressed,

the prevailing local tensions, the immediacy of the circumstances and the

collective sensitivities of the community form an integral backdrop against

which the meaning and potential impact of such speech must be assessed.

Words spoken in isolation may appear innocuous; however, when delivered

in a charged atmosphere, the same words may assume an altogether different

connotation and consequence.

31. It is a settled principle of constitutional and criminal

jurisprudence that a speech given by a person cannot be dissected and

transposed from the place where the same had been set out and be examined

under a different set of circumstances. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

famously observed, the question in matters of speech is often whether the

words used create a “clear and present danger” in the circumstances in

which they are uttered. In case of Schenck v. United States reported as 1919

SCC Online US SC 62, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously observed

that the question in matters of speech is often whether the words used create

a “clear and present danger” in the circumstances in which they are uttered.

The relevant extract thereof is as under:

6. ……It well may be that the prohibition of laws abridging the

freedom of speech is not confined to previous restraints,

although to prevent them may have been the main purpose, as

20

125 CRM-M-53576-2025(O&M)

intimated in Patterson v. Colorado. We admit that in many

places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that

was said in the circular would have been within their

constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends

upon the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent

protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely

shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even

protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that

may have all the effect of force. The question in every case is

whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are

of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that

they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a

right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When

a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of

peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will

not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could

regard them as protected by any constitutional right. It seems to

be admitted that if an actual obstruction of the recruiting

service were proved, liability for words that produced that

effect might be enforced. The statute of 1917 in section 4

punishes conspiracies to obstruct as well as actual obstruction.

If the act, (speaking, or circulating a paper,) its tendency and

the intent with which it is done are the same, we perceive no

ground for saying that success alone warrants making the act a

crime…..

(emphasis supplied)

21

125 CRM-M-53576-2025(O&M)

32. Likewise, John Stuart Mill, in his seminal essay On Liberty,

articulated the “harm principle” and cautioned that the liberty of expression

may justifiably be restrained where its exercise causes, or is likely to cause,

harm to others. The same reads thus:

“That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are

warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the

liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That

the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised

over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is

to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or

moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”

33. In Amish Devgan v. Union of India, (2021) 1 SCC 1, the

Supreme Court emphasised that the determination of “hate speech” is

intrinsically dependent upon context, which involves a careful consideration

of who the speaker is, who the audience is, what is said, and the place, time,

occasion, and circumstances in which the speech is delivered. The relevant

extract thereof is as under:

“75. The “context”, as indicated above, has a certain key

variable, namely, “who” and “what” is involved and “where”

and the “occasion, time and under what circumstances” the

case arises. The “who” is always plural for it encompasses the

speaker who utters the statement that constitutes “hate speech”

and also the audience to whom the statement is addressed

which includes both the target and the others. Variable context

review recognises that all speeches are not alike. This is not

only because of group affiliations, but in the context of

dominant group hate speech against a vulnerable and

discriminated group, and also the impact of hate speech

depends on the person who has uttered the words. [ Michel

22

125 CRM-M-53576-2025(O&M)

Rosenfeld, Hate Speech in Constitutional Jurisprudence : A

Comparative Analysis, 24 Cardozo Law Review 1523 (2002-

03).] The variable recognises that a speech by “a person of

influence” such as a top government or executive functionary,

opposition leader, political or social leader of following, or a

credible anchor on a TV show carries a far more credibility

and impact than a statement made by a common person on the

street. Latter may be driven by anger, emotions, wrong

perceptions or misinformation. This may affect their intent.

Impact of their speech would be mere indifference, meet

correction/criticism by peers, or sometimes negligible to

warrant attention and hold that they were likely to incite or had

attempted to promote hatred, enmity, etc. between different

religious, racial, language or regional groups. Further, certain

categories of speakers may be granted a degree of latitude in

terms of the State response to their speech. Communities with a

history of deprivation, oppression, and persecution may

sometimes speak in relation to their lived experiences, resulting

in the words and tone being harsher and more critical than

usual. Their historical experience often comes to be accepted

by the society as the rule, resulting in their words losing the

gravity that they otherwise deserve. In such a situation, it is

likely for persons from these communities to reject the tenet of

civility, as polemical speech and symbols that capture the

emotional loading can play a strong role in mobilising. [ Myra

Mrx Ferree, William A. Gamson, Jurgen Gerhards and Dieter

Rucht, “Four Models of the Public Sphere in Modern

Democracies”, published in Theory and Society, Vol. 31, No. 3

(June, 2002), pp. 289-324.] Such speech should be viewed not

from the position of a person of privilege or a community

without such a historical experience, but rather, the courts

should be more circumspect when penalising such speech. This

is recognition of the denial of dignity in the past, and the effort

should be reconciliatory. Nevertheless, such speech should not

provoke and “incite” — as distinguished from discussion or

23

125 CRM-M-53576-2025(O&M)

advocacy — “hatred” and violence towards the targeted group.

Likelihood or similar statutory mandate to violence, public

disorder or “hatred” when satisfied would result in penal

action as per law. Every right and indulgence has a limit.

Further, when the offending act creates public disorder and

violence, whether alone or with others, then the aspect of

“who” and question of indulgence would lose significance and

may be of little consequence.

(Emphasis supplied)

34. These judicial and philosophical underpinnings underscore the

necessity of contextual evaluation rather than textual dissection. Thus, while

adjudicating the instant plea for quashing the FIR, this Court cannot ignore

the backdrop in which such speech was delivered. The place, occasion,

audience and surrounding circumstances are indispensable to determining

whether the expression remains within the protective ambit of free speech or

crosses the threshold into a conduct barred by the penal law. To transpose

such speech from its native context and test it under an entirely different set

of assumptions would defeat the very object of the statutory provisions so

enacted.

35. The very fact that the petitioner started his address by saying

that he would be accused of targeting a caste indicates that he was fully

conscious of the nature and tenor of the speech, as well as of the possibility

that the congregation and the content of his remarks were intended to

advance certain divisive strategies or allegations. Further, while going

further he specifically said “उन जाती वादी गुंडों ने इसके बेटे को पीटा था उसके िपछवाड़े

म
S डंडा दे िदया था।”. The repeated invocation of the expression “casteist or जाती

वादी/Jaati Vadi” is not merely casual, accidental or incidental. I am afraid

that the reiteration of the aspect ‘Jati Vaadi’, invariably is reaffirming his

indication towards a specific caste group.

24

125 CRM-M-53576-2025(O&M)

36. If the portrayal sought to be advanced by the petitioner about

the statement having being said with respect to atrocities against his client, is

to be accepted, there was no occasion for the petitioner to have often

repeated the word caste/casteist gundas again and again. In such situation, a

generic expression or a neutral reference to the complainant and the accused

would have adequately served the purpose. The petitioner being a trained

Advocate is assumed to be fully aware of the import and societal implication

of the expression that he chooses while addressing the public. The persistent

and deliberate reference to “caste” and “casteist goons” in the speech cannot,

therefore, be brushed aside as inadvertent or incidental. It rather shows that

there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioner to be using such

expression so as to incite people, which had the potential to create a public

disorder and posing imminent danger to public tranquility.

37. The portrayal made by the petitioner at this juncture, to argue

that the aforesaid remarks have to be examined in isolation and independent

of the circumstances, I am afraid that such an argument cannot be accepted.

Speeches delivered in a public meeting or before a congregation are required

to be assessed in the context of the audience to whom they are addressed and

the likely impact it may have upon them. The effect and influence of a

public address are linked to the locality, the prevailing social conditionsand

the sensitivities of the audience present.

38. Besides, the socio-economic background and the mental

faculties of the audience to whom such a speech is addressed are equally

relevant considerations which cannot be ignored by the Court. The same

words may carry vastly different meanings and consequences depending

upon whether they are spoken before a discerning audience in an academic

25

125 CRM-M-53576-2025(O&M)

or intellectual setting or before a large public gathering susceptible to

emotional appeal and mobilisation. The speech in the present case was not

delivered as part of a reasoned discourse in a seminar or an academic forum,

where allegations of atrocities might be debated as an expression of opinion

within the bounds of informed discussion. On the contrary, the speech was

addressed to a public crowd that had assembled in connection with and

probably in response to a call for support against caste atrocity. In such a

setting, emotive and caste-laden expressions possess a far greater potential to

inflame passions, polarise the audience and disturb public tranquility. The

nature of the gathering and the circumstances under which the speech was

made, therefore, significantly amplify its likely impact and render it

incapable of being viewed as a mere abstract or intellectual exercise in free

expression.

39. Invariably, the petitioner travelled beyond the scope of his duty

as an Advocate while addressing a congregation alleging false implication

and uploading the content on the internet. As an Advocate, his job is to

defend his client in a Court of Law and not on a public platform by

arranging public protests. By choosing to address a congregation and

ventilate allegations in a public forum, the petitioner travelled beyond the

domain of professional advocacy into the realm of public mobilisation. The

same reflects the passionate attachment of the petitioner to the incident thus,

making him an interested participant seeking to influence perceptions

relating not only to the prosecution but also to the eventual outcome of the

case. In these circumstances, the petitioner’s role cannot be evaluated on the

same footing as that of a dispassionate and independent professional

discharging his duties strictly within the confines of the courtroom.

26

125 CRM-M-53576-2025(O&M)

40. In Amish Devgan v. Union of India (supra), the Supreme

Court observed that persons of influence, by reason of their reach, authority,

and impact upon the public or a particular class, owe a higher duty of

responsibility in the use of language. Such individuals are expected to be

conscious of the meaning and implications of the words they speak or write,

including the likely interpretations conveyed to the audience. The relevant

extract is as under:

76. Persons of influence, keeping in view their reach, impact

and authority they wield on general public or the specific class

to which they belong, owe a duty and have to be more

responsible. They are expected to know and perceive the

meaning conveyed by the words spoken or written, including

the possible meaning that is likely to be conveyed. With

experience and knowledge, they are expected to have a higher

level of communication skills. It is reasonable to hold that they

would be careful in using the words that convey their intent.

The reasonable man's test would always take into consideration

the maker. In other words, the expression “reasonable man”

would take into account the impact a particular person would

have and accordingly apply the standard, just like we substitute

the reasonable man's test to that of the reasonable professional

when we apply the test of professional negligence. [ In Bolam v.

Friern Hospital Management Committee, (1957) 1 WLR 582 :

(1957) 2 All ER 118, it was observed : (WLR p. 587)A doctor is

not guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with a

practice accepted as proper by a reasonable body of medical

27

125 CRM-M-53576-2025(O&M)

men skilled in that particular art. … Putting it the other way

round, a doctor is not negligent, if he is acting in accordance

with such a practice, merely because there is a body of opinion

that takes a contrary view.] This is not to say that persons of

influence like journalists do not enjoy the same freedom of

speech and expression as other citizens, as this would be

grossly incorrect understanding of what has been stated above.

This is not to dilute satisfaction of the three elements, albeit to

accept importance of “who” when we examine “harm or

impact element” and in a given case even “intent” and/or

“content element”.

(Emphasis supplied)

41. Referring to the judgment in the matter of ‘Balwant Singh and

another Vs. State of Punjab’ reported as 1995 AIR Hon’ble Supreme Court

1785 relied upon by counsel for the petitioner, the said judgment had not

been passed on a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. rather, the accused

therein had been tried. The judgment in question had been passed on the

basis of the evidence that had already been led before the Court and after

assessment thereof. The findings recorded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

are thus based upon the consideration of the evidence that had been placed

before the Court. The same not being the case herein and the evidence yet to

be assessed by the Court, the judgment would not come to the aid of the

petitioner at this juncture.

42. Referring next to the judgment in the matter of ‘Imran

Pratapgadhi Vs. State of Gujarat and another’ reported as 2025 SCC

Online SC 678, the said judgment was on the context of a recital of a poem

28

125 CRM-M-53576-2025(O&M)

or artistic expression. A specific finding is recorded in Para 10 of the

judgment that the poetic expressions has nothing to do with any religion,

region or race etc. The present speech is prima facie not in the league of any

neutral expression of a thought.

43. Rather, this speech is a specific expression, where a caste

related submission, which has the potential and likelihood of promoting inter

se enmity between different castes is apparently made out. The judgment of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Imran Pratapgadhi Vs. State of

Gujarat and another (supra) which was rendered in the said context would

thus not apply in context in hand.

44. Expressions such as the use of phrases like “casteist gundas”,

does not merely criticise the conduct of identifiable individuals; rather, it

imputes criminality, moral depravity and collective blame to an entire caste

or social group. In doing so, it directly undermines the dignity of individuals

who belong to or identify with that group. When such expressions are

publicly articulated and normalised, particularly in charged or emotive

settings, they carry the real and imminent risk of legitimising prejudice,

inciting hostility and disturbing public tranquillity. Freedom of speech

cannot be stretched to shield expressions that promote or are likely to

promote alienation, public disorder or violence or that challenge the unity

and integrity of the nation. Unchecked divisive speech ultimately curtail the

liberties of law-abiding citizens.

45. In a nation founded upon the ideals of equality, fraternity and

respect for human dignity, caste-based hate speech not only wounds

individual dignity but also imperil social harmony and the collective

conscience of the country.

29

125 CRM-M-53576-2025(O&M)

46. In Amish Devgan v. Union of India (supra), the Supreme

Court observed that the Preamble to the Constitution consciously links

fraternity, the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the

nation, treating them as interdependent constitutional values. The Court

observed that while dignity is secured through individual rights, unity and

integrity impose corresponding obligations upon individuals to respect

others and preserve social cohesion. Acts or expressions that promote or are

likely to promote divisiveness or alienation directly undermine pluralism and

diversity and when such conduct is intended or likely to cause public

disorder or to demean the dignity of targeted groups, it must be addressed in

accordance with law. The relevant extract thereof reads thus :

71. The Preamble to the Constitution consciously puts together

fraternity assuring dignity of the individual and the unity and

integrity of the nation. Dignity of individual and unity and

integrity of the nation are linked, one in the form of rights of

individuals and other in the form of individual's obligation to

others to ensure unity and integrity of the nation. The unity and

integrity of the nation cannot be overlooked and slighted, as the

acts that “promote” or are “likely” to “promote” divisiveness,

alienation and schematism do directly and indirectly impinge

on the diversity and pluralism, and when they are with the

objective and intent to cause public disorder or to demean

dignity of the targeted groups, they have to be dealt with as per

law. The purpose is not to curtail right to expression and

speech, albeit not gloss over specific egregious threats to public

disorder and in particular the unity and integrity of the nation.

30

125 CRM-M-53576-2025(O&M)

Such threats not only insidiously weaken virtue and superiority

of diversity, but cut back and lead to demands depending on the

context and occasion, for suppression of freedom to express

and speak on the ground of reasonableness. Freedom and

rights cannot extend to create public disorder or armour those

who challenge integrity and unity of the country or promote

and incite violence. Without acceptable public order, freedom

to speak and express is challenged and would get restricted for

the common masses and law-abiding citizens. This invariably

leads to State response and, therefore, those who indulge in

promotion and incitement of violence to challenge unity and

integrity of the nation or public disorder tend to trample upon

liberty and freedom of others.

(emphasis supplied)”

47. Since much reliance has been placed on the conclusions drawn

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Imran Pratapgadhi Vs. State

of Gujarat and another (supra), I find that the said conclusions do not

actually espouse the cause of the petitioner herein. Clause (iii) of para No.42

thereof clearly says that reading of written words or hearing or spoken words

will be necessary to determine whether the content makes out a case of the

commission of a cognizable offence or not. Communication invariably has

twin perspectives i.e. perception of one who speaks and second from the

perception of the one who is the consumer/recipient of the communication.

The petitioner has not been able to give any satisfactory explanation as to

what were the circumstances or compelling reasons that the expression

31

125 CRM-M-53576-2025(O&M)

casteist hooligans/gundas had to be used by him in a public speech or public

gathering, if the idea was only to make a protest against false implication.

48. While examining the issue for quashing of an FIR, the

parameters for quashing are on a different footing. It is only in a situation

where, upon a plain reading of the FIR and the material placed on record, the

allegations do not disclose the commission of any offence or where the

proceedings are manifestly frivolous or an abuse of the process of law, that

an FIR has to be quashed. Once the allegations/contents prima facie satisfy

the primary ingredients for commission of offence, at that stage, motive

behind implication recedes into insignificance. An illegality or an offence

would not be condoned merely because the person reporting such offence

had his own axe to grind against any offender. The focus remains on the

nature of the allegations rather than on the subjective motivations attributed

to the complainant.

49. As the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for

quashing of the FIR, the present petition is accordingly dismissed at this

stage.

50. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

11.12.2025 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)

Sumit Gusain JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No