The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that allegations of insulting religious sentiments through ambiguous expressions in political disputes cannot be summarily dismissed as frivolous at the FIR stage. The Court declined to quash a criminal proceeding under Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, emphasizing that factual disputes require investigation, not premature judicial intervention.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute originated from a conflict between the petitioner, Jeevan Dewangan, and two Anganwadi workers, Smt. Dulari Bai and Smt. Chameli Bai, who had filed a complaint against him alleging harassment and illegal monetary demands. An inquiry into these allegations was underway at Police Station Thelkadih when the petitioner, who is also District Vice President of the Bharatiya Janata Party and husband of the Sabhapati of Jila Panchayat Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, submitted a formal complaint on 10.06.2025 to the District Collector regarding systemic irregularities in Anganwadi centres, including false attendance records in the Poshan App Tracker and misdistribution of food supplies.
Key Facts
- The petitioner’s wife filed a complaint on 10.06.2025 regarding corruption in Anganwadi centres at Village Makamtola, Chechhanpahri, Pachpedi, and Vicharpur.
- On 13.11.2025, the petitioner allegedly posted a message in the WhatsApp group "BJP Mandal Thelkadih" referencing the Right to Information Act and irregularities in Anganwadi food distribution.
- The message reportedly contained the term "Guru Ghantaal" in reference to Shri Guru Khushwant Saheb Ji, a revered religious leader and Cabinet Minister of the Satnami community.
- The message was subsequently deleted from the group.
- The District Satnami Samaj filed a written complaint on 20.11.2025 with the Superintendent of Police, alleging that the term was abusive, indecent, and intentionally hurt religious sentiments.
- The petitioner has no prior criminal record and was granted anticipatory bail on 12.12.2025 in MCRCA No. 1958 of 2025.
- No charge-sheet has been filed as of the date of the judgment.
Procedural History
- 10.06.2025: Petitioner’s wife files complaint with District Collector regarding Anganwadi irregularities.
- 13.11.2025: Alleged WhatsApp message posted by petitioner in "BJP Mandal Thelkadih" group.
- 20.11.2025: District Satnami Samaj files formal complaint with Superintendent of Police.
- 26.11.2025: FIR No. 239/2025 registered at Police Station Thelkadih under Section 299 of BNS.
- 12.12.2025: Petitioner granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 1958 of 2025.
- 07.05.2026: Present petition under Section 528 BNSS filed seeking quashing of FIR and all consequential proceedings.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner: Argues the term "Guru Ghantaal" was not used with intent to insult religious feelings, but as a colloquial or political reference in the context of an administrative dispute. Claims the FIR is a retaliatory measure due to his political role and his wife’s complaint against Anganwadi corruption. Asserts no deliberate malice, no explicit derogatory language, and no nexus with religion.
Respondent State: Contends the FIR discloses a prima facie offence under Section 299 BNS, as the term was used in reference to a religious figure revered by the Satnami community, and the complaint alleges intentional insult to religious sentiments. Maintains that factual disputes cannot be adjudicated at the quashing stage.
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 239/2025 dated 26.11.2025 and all consequential proceedings, on grounds that the allegations do not constitute a cognizable offence and the prosecution is mala fide, politically motivated, and an abuse of process.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the alleged use of the term "Guru Ghantaal" in a WhatsApp message, during a political-administrative dispute, prima facie constitutes an offence under Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, such that the High Court must exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR at the preliminary stage.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to argue that where allegations, even if accepted in full, do not disclose a cognizable offence or are inherently improbable, the High Court may quash proceedings. He contended that "Guru Ghantaal" is not a recognized derogatory term in the Satnami community and was used in a non-religious context tied to a personal dispute over Anganwadi mismanagement. He further cited Salib v. State of U.P. to argue that mechanical registration of FIR without preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3) BNSS renders the proceeding void. He emphasized that the petitioner, as a senior BJP office-bearer, would have no motive to insult a Cabinet Minister from his own party.
For the Respondent
The State counsel argued that the FIR, on its face, alleges intentional use of a term referencing a religious leader in a manner that could outrage religious feelings, satisfying the ingredients of Section 299 BNS. He submitted that the petitioner’s claims of political vendetta and lack of intent are defence matters to be examined during trial, not at the quashing stage. He further contended that non-compliance with Section 173(3) BNSS does not invalidate the FIR at this stage, especially when investigation is ongoing and no evidence of procedural mala fide has been produced.
The Court's Analysis
The Court emphasized that the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS is extraordinary and must be exercised with restraint. It reiterated the settled principles from Bhajan Lal and subsequent judgments that at the quashing stage, the Court must not embark on a mini-trial, assess the credibility of evidence, or resolve disputed questions of fact.
"The allegations contained in the FIR, taken at their face value, prima facie disclose commission of a cognizable offence warranting investigation."
The Court noted that the term "Guru Ghantaal" was allegedly used in reference to a Cabinet Minister who is also a religious leader of the Satnami community. Whether the term was used with malicious intent, as a political slur, or as an innocent colloquialism is a matter of evidence and context that requires investigation. The Court held that the petitioner’s assertion of political rivalry and administrative dispute, while plausible, are defences to be raised during trial, not grounds for quashing at the FIR stage.
The Court further rejected the argument that non-compliance with Section 173(3) BNSS - which mandates a preliminary enquiry for offences punishable with three to seven years’ imprisonment - automatically invalidates the FIR. It observed that no material was placed on record to prove that the registration was vitiated by mala fide or procedural arbitrariness.
The Court clarified that while the petitioner’s conduct may ultimately be found innocent, the threshold for quashing is not met merely because the allegations are contested or politically sensitive. The law requires that such disputes be resolved through proper investigation and trial, not through judicial intervention at the threshold.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Court held that the FIR under Section 299 BNS cannot be quashed at this stage as the allegations, even if accepted in full, prima facie disclose a cognizable offence. The investigation shall proceed without interference. The Court clarified that its observations are confined to the quashing petition and shall not prejudice the merits of the case. The petitioner’s anticipatory bail remains in effect.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Alleged Insults in Political Contexts Require Investigation, Not Quashing
- Practitioners must avoid seeking quashing of FIRs under Section 299 BNS merely because the alleged insult arises from a political or personal dispute.
- Courts will not presume absence of criminal intent based on the accused’s political affiliation or prior conduct unless the language is demonstrably non-offensive on its face.
Section 173(3) BNSS Non-Compliance Is Not a Ground for Automatic Quashing
- Procedural lapses in preliminary enquiry do not invalidate an FIR unless mala fide or gross arbitrariness is proven with evidence.
- Investigation must be allowed to proceed; procedural defects can be raised later during trial or bail hearings.
High Court’s Inherent Jurisdiction Is Not a Substitute for Trial
- The Bhajan Lal exceptions apply only where allegations are absurd, inherently improbable, or manifestly mala fide.
- Ambiguous expressions, context-dependent language, and disputed intent are not grounds for quashing - they are matters for trial courts to determine.
