HC quashes FIR over FB post — Not every insult attracts sec 299 of BNS

HC quashes FIR over FB post — Not every insult attracts sec 299 of BNS

Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar : The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay high ourt has quashed an FIR registered against social worker Mohammad Hisham Osmani over a Facebook post, holding that not every insult or objectionable statement necessarily attracts Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The court observed that section 299 applies only to an aggravated form of insult to religion or religious beliefs, accompanied by a deliberate and malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of a particular class of citizens. Ghodeswar passed the order on Nov 3, allowing Osmani’s criminal application seeking quashing of the FIR. The FIR was registered at Pundaliknagar police station on Feb 21, 2026, under section 299 of the BNS, which carries a punishment of up to three years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both. Kazi submitted that after an objection was received over the post, a police officer asked Osmani to delete it at around 10 pm on Feb 21, about four hours after the FIR was registered, and that he deleted it immediately.

Justice Sushil M. The HC had allowed a connected application filed by Vinod Narayan Patil as an intervenor.

Adv SS Kazi submitted before the HC that the police registered the FIR without any inquiry and without calling Osmani, and also that he was unaware of it While representing Osmani.

After going through the FIR and the statements recorded by the investigating officer, the high court said that even if the post was taken at face value, it did not disclose any specific insult to the religion or religious beliefs of any particular class of citizens. The HC concluded that to prevent abuse of the process of the court and secure the ends of justice, it quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings, if any, to the extent of the applicant.

Kazi, appearing for the applicant, read out section 299 and argued that no offence under it was made out. Assistant public prosecutor for the state and complainant’s advocate opposed the petition, submitting that the investigation was almost complete and the charge sheet was being prepared.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *