Ashish Singh Alias Ashish Bhai vs State of U.P. and Another

By way of the present application under section 528 B.N.S.S., the applicant has made a prayer to quash the Charge-sheet dated 22.03.2023 along with Cognizance / Summoning order dated 17.10.2023 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Kanpur Nagar as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.153004 of 2023 (State vs. Ashish Singh) arising out of Case Crime No.199 of 2022, under Section 505 (2) I.P.C. and Section 67 Information Technology Act, Police Station Bithoor, District Kanpur Nagar pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Kanpur Nagar.

¶11

In the instant matter, an F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant alleging therein that he made some objectionable remarks against Baba Sahab Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar and then made it viral to the mobile phones of other persons. F.I.R. was lodged by the informant Ram Lal Kori alleging therein that some objectionable remarks were made by the present accused applicant and that he is very aggrieved and annoyed / angry by the said conduct of the present applicant. The motive of the accused applicant was to create / promote enmity, hatred or ill-will between different classes of the Society and the said objectionable message / screenshot was published and circulated in the Society with intent to create or promote a caste dispute on the ground

¶12

NA528 No. 36707 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

of religious, racial, language, caste or community and also to expand feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religions and castes of the Society. With these allegations, the F.I.R. was lodged against the present applicant on 29.5.2022 at 1:30 P.M. at the Police Station Bithoor, District Kanpur Nagar and after investigation now the charge-sheet has been submitted in this case.

¶15

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the whole story of the F.I.R. is a bundle of false and fabricated facts. The alleged offence was never committed by the applicant and even if it is presumed that in the mobile phone of the applicant some objectionable materials against Baba Sahab Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar were present, the prosecution has miserably failed to show that the said contents were circulated in the Society with a view to cause harm, enmity and hatred between different religions, language and groups or castes. It is further submitted that no such objectionable material was made viral by the applicant in the Society. It is also submitted that even in the mobile phone of the informant himself no such contents were sent by the applicant. Since the objectionable contents were not made public, there was no chance to create feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes and castes of the Society. It is further contended that even during the investigation, the Investigating Officer failed to collect any such content against the applicant as alleged in the F.I.R. It is also submitted that essential ingredients to constitute the offencer under section 67 Information Technology Act are also not established in this case. The present applicant has no criminal background. All the proceedings of the prosecution initiated against the applicant are bogus. It is also submitted that after conducting biased investigation, the Investigating Officer of the case submitted chargesheet against the applicant under Section 505 (2) I.P.C. and Section 67 Information Technology Act and the learned Magistrate took cognizance upon the said charge-sheet submitted by the police. Hence, a prayer has been made to quash the charge-sheet dated 22.03.2023 as well as summoning order dated 17.10.2023 passed in pursuance of the said charge-sheet by allowing the present application.

¶16

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant but however he could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that the Investigating Officer during the investigation did not find any evidence of spreading or making viral the objectionable contents as alleged in the F.I.R.

¶17

NA528 No. 36707 of 2025

¶18

3

¶19

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record.

¶20

Section 505 (2) IPC reads as under :

¶21

"505 (2) Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes .--Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."

¶22

Thus, from the above, it is explicitly clear that Section 505 (2) of I.P.C. deals with punishment for making, publishing or circulating any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities. However, in the instant case the Investigating Officer during the investigation did not find any such evidence of spreading or making viral the objectionable contents as alleged in the F.I.R., as such it does not constitute offence punishable under Section 505 (2) of I.P.C. Even there is no evidence at all against the present applicant for commission of the offence under Section 67 Information Technology Act. Hence, no offence is made out against the present applicant under Section 67 Information Technology Act also.

¶23

In view of the above discussions and following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court enumerated in the cases of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1991 (28) ACC 111 (SC), M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2021 (117) ACC 280 (SC) and Vineet Kumar Vs. State of U.P., 2017 (99) ACC 701 (SC) , I am of the view that the present application is liable to be allowed and the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are liable to be quashed.

¶24

The Application is accordingly allowed .

¶25

NA528 No. 36707 of 2025

¶26

4

¶27

The entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid Criminal Case No.153004 of 2023 (State vs. Ashish Singh) arising out of Case Crime No.199 of 2022, under Section 505 (2) I.P.C. and Section 67 Information Technology Act, Police Station Bithoor, District Kanpur Nagar pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Kanpur Nagar are quashed against the present applicant.

¶28

October 13, 2025

¶29

ss

¶30

(Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)

¶31

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ashish Singh Alias Ashish Bhai v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Singh Alias Ashish Bhai v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sanju Verma vs State of U.P.

Nadeem Alias Saleem vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Lokesh vs State of U.P.

Devendra Alias Chhotelal vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Muzammil vs State of U.P.