Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: In a petition seeking quashment of an FIR, a Single Judge Bench of M.A. Chowdhary, J., considered whether a Covid-19 WhatsApp rumour creating panic that two positive cases had been detected in a locality could attract criminal liability under Section 505(2), Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Court observed that the allegations did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence, as there was no allegation or material showing any intent or likelihood to create enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups, and consequently quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings.
Also Read: P&H HC quashes FIR against bank manager for dressing her dog as Lord Krishna
Background
The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 528, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking quashment of an FIR registered for the offence punishable under Section 505(2) IPC. The allegation in the FIR was that on 28 March 2020, the petitioner circulated a message in a WhatsApp group stating that two positive cases of Covid-19 had been found in the locality thereby creating panic in society.
The petitioner contended that the allegations did not disclose the commission of any offence under Section 505(2) IPC. It was argued that neither the FIR nor the investigation suggested that the message had been circulated with the intent or likelihood contemplated under the provision. It was further submitted that the alleged rumour had not even been demonstrated to be false and that no evidence had been collected to establish the existence of the ingredients of the offence. On the other hand, the respondents submitted that the power under Section 528 BNSS [corresponding to Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC)] can be resorted to if the same is justified by the tests laid down in the section itself, however, the instant case is not covered under the sweep of the said section.
Also Read: S. 482 CrPC: SC’s 4 step process to check veracity of quashment prayer by accused
Analysis
The Court noted that, despite the passage of several years from registration of the FIR, the investigation had not culminated in filing of a final report and even the latest status report merely stated that the investigation was almost complete and that the challan would be presented shortly.
The Court examined Section 505(2) IPC and observed that the provision is attracted only where a person makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report with intent to create, or which is likely to create or promote, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups on grounds such as religion, race, caste, community, language or other similar grounds.
The Court opined that a plain reading of the FIR did not disclose any of those essential ingredients. The allegation was limited to circulation of information regarding detection of Covid-19 cases in a locality. There was no assertion that the message was intended to create, or was likely to create, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between any groups on the grounds contemplated by Section 505(2) IPC. The Court highlighted that creation of panic or fear by itself does not satisfy the requirements of Section 505(2) IPC.
The Court further noted that even after investigation spanning almost 5 years, no material had been placed on record demonstrating the requisite intention on the part of the petitioner or indicating that the message was likely to promote hatred or enmity between different groups. The Court observed that the status report did not disclose collection of any evidence establishing the foundational ingredients of the offence. It was also not shown that the information allegedly circulated by the petitioner was false or fabricated.
The Court reiterated the settled position that where the allegations contained in an FIR, even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law and justify exercise of the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice.
The Court also considered the issue of limitation and noted that the offence under Section 505(2) IPC is punishable with imprisonment extending up to three years and that Section 468 CrPC prescribes a limitation period of 3 years for taking cognizance of such an offence. The Court observed that no final report had been filed even after more than 5 years and the respondents had failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation for such extraordinary delay. The Court emphasised that permitting the investigation to continue indefinitely despite absence of material disclosing commission of the alleged offence would itself amount to abuse of the process of law.
Also Read: Quashment of POCSO FIR amid compromise and pregnancy: Allahabad HC
Decision
The Court, while allowing the petition, held that the allegations contained in the FIR did not disclose commission of an offence under Section 505(2) IPC and that continuation of criminal proceedings beyond the statutory period of 3 years would serve no useful purpose and would result in miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the Court quashed the FIR along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
[Sandeep Kumar Bhat v. State (UT of J&K), CRM(M) No. 118 of 2025, decided on 7-8-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner: Ayushman Kotwal, Advocate.
For Respondents: Shazia Asaf, Advocate vice P.D. Singh, Deputy AG.