The Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a Pune-based woman, Ms. Farah Deeba, seeking quashing of an FIR registered against her for allegedly making derogatory comments about the Indian Army and the Prime Minister on a WhatsApp group and status update shortly after the Indian Armed Forces conducted Operation Sindoor. The Court held that the FIR discloses a prima facie case and the investigation must continue.
Background
The FIR, registered on 15 May 2025 at Kalepadal Police Station, Pune, accuses the petitioner of offences under Sections 152, 196, 197, 352, and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Both the petitioner and the complainant are residents of the same society—Margosa Heights in Pune—and were members of a women-only WhatsApp group titled Sath Sath Margosa Ladies, with around 380 participants.
On 7 May 2025, following the success of Operation Sindoor by the Indian Armed Forces, members of the WhatsApp group shared patriotic messages praising the military and the Prime Minister. In response, the petitioner allegedly posted a message stating that “we have T.V. and mobiles, therefore, the group should not be used as a National News Channel.” When another member wrote “Jai Hind, Jai Bharat,” the petitioner reportedly reacted with a laughing emoji.
Subsequently, the petitioner allegedly uploaded a WhatsApp status featuring a Facebook video showing the Indian National Flag burning and the Prime Minister sitting on a rocket. She also allegedly made comments referring to India as “Makkar” and disclosed that her paternal and maternal families were from Pakistan.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner, represented by Advocate Harshad Sathe, submitted that:
- She was mentally unwell at the time of posting the messages.
- She deleted the messages once she realised they were inappropriate and had apologised to the complainant.
- She was already suffering professionally, having been expelled from the school where she taught.
- Notice under Section 41-A CrPC was not properly served, being sent belatedly via WhatsApp.
- The FIR did not disclose any cognisable offence and deserved to be quashed.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the quashing, submitting that:
- There was sufficient material to implicate the petitioner under the relevant provisions of BNS.
- The WhatsApp status and messages included visuals and language that disrespected national symbols and figures.
- The petitioner’s own admission about her familial links to Pakistan and derogatory language used against the nation reflected mens rea.
- Her actions incited public unrest in the locality, with groups approaching the police and staging protests.
Court’s Analysis
The Court observed that:
- The petitioner holds a Master’s degree in English and is a qualified teacher. Her education implies a duty to act responsibly.
- The content she posted—including a video of the national flag burning and derogatory remarks—caused unrest and showed disregard for national sentiment.
- “What is expected of a prudent person is that, before putting up any kind of message on social group, a person like the petitioner… should also think about the pros and cons…”
- The Court rejected the mental health defence, stating it would not justify quashing the FIR at this stage.
- The Court found merit in the argument that the posts stirred strong public emotions and led to a local agitation.
- The notice under Section 41-A CrPC, even if sent via WhatsApp, was known to the petitioner, and she chose not to respond.
The Court cited Supreme Court precedents including:
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604
- Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab, (2020) 3 SCC 317
- Kaptan Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 9 SCC 35
to affirm that quashing of FIRs under Section 482 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly and not at the stage of investigation.
The Court also referred to Ashraf Khan @ Nisrat Khan v. State of U.P., where the Allahabad High Court had denied bail to an accused who uploaded derogatory videos of the Prime Minister during the India-Pakistan conflict, stating that such actions were not protected under the right to free speech and could endanger national integrity.
Decision
The Bombay High Court concluded that:
“After considering the contents of FIR and the various documents on record, we are satisfied that it constitutes the ingredients of the alleged offences.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 178 of 2025. The petitioner was directed to approach the trial court if charges are filed.
Petition Dismissed.
Bench: Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Rajesh S. Patil
Case Title: Farah Deeba v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition No. 3257 of 2025
