In a landmark judgment delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 1545 of 2025, the Supreme Court of India has quashed an FIR registered against Rajya Sabha Member Imran Pratapgadhi, offering significant clarification on the interplay between FIR registration and preliminary inquiry under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and the recently enacted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
The ruling, delivered by Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, underscores the constitutional imperative to protect freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), especially in matters involving artistic and political expression.
Background of the Case
The FIR was registered at Jamnagar Police Station on the complaint of a local resident who alleged that a poem shared by Imran Pratapgadhi in a social media post incited communal disharmony. The post contained a background recitation of a poem during a mass wedding event held in December 2024 at the Sanjari Education and Charitable Trust, which the appellant had attended upon invitation by a municipal councillor.
The FIR invoked serious charges under Sections 196, 197(1), 302, 299, 57 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 — all alleging promotion of enmity, intent to outrage religious sentiments, and abetment of crimes through provocative content.
The Gujarat High Court declined to quash the FIR, citing that the investigation was in its early stages. Challenging this order, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues
- Whether the poem recited in the social media video post amounted to incitement of communal hatred or violence.
- Whether the registration of the FIR complied with the procedural safeguards under Section 154 CrPC and Section 173 of the BNSS.
- Whether the High Court erred in refusing to quash the FIR solely because the investigation was at a “nascent” stage.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
On the Content of the Poem
The Court reproduced both the original Urdu poem and its English translation, finding no reference to any specific religion, caste, or community. It noted:
“The poem does not encourage violence. On the contrary, it encourages people to desist from resorting to violence and to face injustice with love.” (¶10)
Justice Oka observed that the poem, symbolic in nature, did not threaten national unity or public order. It merely expressed dissent and resistance in a non-violent manner, protected under Article 19(1)(a).
On FIR Registration and Preliminary Inquiry
The Court used the case to draw an important distinction between Section 154 of CrPC and Section 173 of the BNSS, particularly subsection (3), which permits preliminary inquiry in certain cases before registering an FIR.
“The intention appears to be to prevent the registration of FIRs in frivolous cases where punishment is up to 7 years, even if the information discloses the commission of the cognizable offence.” (¶25)
The bench emphasized that in cases like the present—where the alleged offence relates to speech punishable under 7 years and based on expression—a preliminary inquiry should have been conducted before FIR registration, to uphold constitutional values.
On High Court’s Role in Protecting Fundamental Rights
The Supreme Court rebuked the Gujarat High Court for failing to safeguard constitutional freedoms:
“We are surprised that this very crucial aspect escaped the notice of the High Court. The High Court ought to have nipped the mischief at the threshold itself.” (¶36)
It reiterated that the “nascent stage of investigation” cannot be a blanket reason to deny relief if no offence is made out on the face of the complaint.
Mens Rea and Judicial Standards
The Court invoked prior jurisprudence including Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra and Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra, stressing that mens rea is an essential component of offences under Sections 196 and 197 BNS.
Additionally, it quoted with approval the words of Justice Vivian Bose in Bhagwati Charan Shukla (1946):
“We must use the standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous men, and not those who scent danger in every hostile point of view.” (¶32)
Judgment Outcome
The Supreme Court quashed the FIR against Imran Pratapgadhi, finding that:
- No prima facie offence was made out.
- FIR registration was mechanical and disproportionate.
- The poem fell squarely within the ambit of protected speech.
- The police failed to exercise discretion under Section 173(3) BNSS to conduct a preliminary inquiry.
