Petitioner challenged FIR regarding objectionable Facebook posts allegedly hurting Meghwal community feelings. Court examined case diary, found prima facie case out under Atrocities Act and IPC, and dismissed writ petitions.
Quashing of FIRs and stay petitions dismissed. No interference with impugned FIR.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writs No. 88 / 2018
Ashok Purohit S/o Shri Khumaram, Aged About 27 Years, By Caste Purohit R/o Golasan PS Sanchore, District- Jalore.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents Connected With
S.B. Criminal Writs No. 89 / 2018
Ashok Purohit S/o Shri Khumaram, By Caste Purohit R/o Golasan PS Sanchore, District- Jalore.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr Moti Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr Vikram Rajpurohit
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
(2 of 3)
[CRLW-88/2018]
12/04/2018
The petitioner has preferred both these criminal writ petitions essentially with a prayer for quashing of FIR No.89/2018 lodged at Police Station, Sanchore at the instance of respondent No.4, who has complained that the petitioner on his Facebook Page has posted some objectionable messages, which hurt the feeling of the people of Meghwal Community.
It is alleged in the FIR that the petitioner has defamed the whole Meghwal Community by making casteist remarks and also posted some objectionable messages about the women of the
said community.
The Police have registered the impugned FIR against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(u) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act of 1989' hereinafter) and under Section 506 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as a matter of fact the petitioner did not send the alleged objectionable message to the respondent No.4, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed any offence as mentioned in the impugned FIR.
In S.B.Cr. Writ Petition No.88/2018, this Court vide order dated 04.04.2018 called for the case diary.
Having gone through the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR and having carefully scrutinized the case diary,
(3 of 3)
[CRLW-88/2018]
wherein the police collected details of the messages/posts published by the petitioner on his Facebook Page, I find that prima facie case under section 3(1)(u) of the Act of 1989 and Section 506 IPC is made out, hence, no interference is called for in these criminal writ petitions.
Accordingly, both these petitions are dismissed.
Stay petitions also stand dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.
m.asif/PS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal writ petitions seeking quashing of FIR alleging defamation and casteist remarks should be interfered with.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ashok Purohit
State of Rajasthan
Director General of Police, Jaipur
Station House Officer, Police Station, Sanchore
Sh. Mahendra Singh
Vijay Bishnoi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
