Bombay High Court refuses to quash FIR against teacher who made mocking WhatsApp posts on Operation Sindoor 

Mr. Jindal
10 Min Read

 

The Bombay High Court has refused to quash a First Information Report (FIR) against a 46-year-old Pune-based school teacher accused of posting derogatory messages on a women-only WhatsApp group following the Indian Army’s Operation Sindoor

In a detailed order made available on July 29, 2025, a Division Bench of Justices A.S. Gadkari and Rajesh S. Patil observed that the woman’s conduct, including sharing an image of the Indian flag burning and mocking the Prime Minister, pointed to a clear “mens rea” and warranted a full investigation under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 

Not a single world leader asked India to stop Operation Sindoor, PM tells Lok Sabha

 “In our view, the acts of the Petitioner, initially reacting with a laughing emoji, when others in the WhatsApp group were applauding the steps taken by the Indian Government and the Indian Army with respect to ‘Operation Sindoor’ and thereafter, she on her WhatsApp status, uploaded a video wherein the Prime Minister of India [Narendra Modi], has been shown as sitting on a rocket and the Indian National flag shown burning, attracts the provisions of Section 152, 196, 197, 352 and 353 of the BNS 2023,” the Bench observed.  

The order further read that the petitioner is seen to be informing the complainant that her families belonged to neighbouring country Pakistan and she addressed India as ‘Makkar’.  

“This itself shows the mens rea behind the alleged crime committed by the petitioner. It is the petitioner’s claim that her maternal and paternal families hail from Pakistan, in such a situation she makes such a derogatory statement against India will have some bearing on the situation then prevailing and as to the statement/s she made,” the order said.  

Operation Sindoor will restart if Pakistan resorts to any misadventure, paused military action after achieving objectives: Rajnath Singh

Background of the case  

Farah Deeba, a Pune resident, moved the Bombay High Court under Article 226 and Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash an FIR lodged against her on May 15, 2025, at Kalepadal Police Station. She is booked under Sections 152, 196, 197, 352, and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.  

The FIR stated that both the petitioner and the complainant reside in the same Pune housing society, where a women-only WhatsApp group titled ‘Sath Sath Margosa Ladies’ was created by a resident. The group included around 380 female members from the society.  

On May 7, 2025, following the Indian Armed Forces’ Operation Sindoor that destroyed terrorist launch pads across the border, members of the WhatsApp group began posting congratulatory messages praising the Army. The petitioner responded by saying, “We have TV and mobiles, the group shouldn’t be used as a National News Channel.” When a member replied it was a time to show solidarity with the nation, Army and Prime Minister — ending with “Jai Hind, Jai Bharat” — several others echoed the sentiment. The petitioner reacted with a laughing emoji.  

Ruling dispensation lacked political will to carry out Operation Sindoor: Rahul Gandhi

Following this, several messages were exchanged on the group. The petitioner then posted additional messages and updated her WhatsApp status with a link to a Facebook video, which some known members objected to. Despite this, she continued to share messages allegedly critical of the Prime Minister and the country. These posts prompted the first informant to lodge the FIR against her.  

Arguments  

Advocate Harshad Sathe, appearing for the petitioner, argued that she was not in a sound mental state when the incident occurred. Upon realising that her messages had offended some members, including the complainant, she deleted them and issued an apology. He submitted that she has already suffered consequences, having been terminated from her teaching job. He also contended that the Section 41-A Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) notice was belatedly and improperly served via WhatsApp. Arguing that the FIR lacks merit and serves no purpose, he urged the court to quash it. 

Opposing the arguments, APP M.M. Deshmukh argued that the FIR contains ample material to prosecute the petitioner under Sections 152, 196, 197, 352, and 353 of the BNS, 2023. The petitioner had uploaded a video showing the Indian national flag burning and used the term “Makkar” to describe India in her WhatsApp status, while also reacting to pro-Army messages with a laughing emoji. The petitioner claimed her paternal and maternal families were from Pakistan, adding context to her statements.  

Mr. Deshmukh contended that the offensive posts, including remarks against the Prime Minister, sparked unrest in the society, as evidenced by photographs of local residents protesting at the police station. Despite the petitioner’s apology, the prosecution argued that significant damage had already been done. Given the ongoing investigation, she said the FIR could not be quashed at this stage. 

Court observations  

The Bench observed that the petitioner’s statement had come immediately after the Indian Army successfully conducted the ‘Operation Sindoor’ therefore her statement and her own WhatsApp status had created a high possibility of stirring up with the emotions in group of people on the WhatsApp group and subsequently others going to the local police station and raising slogans and ‘dharna’ thereby insisting police to take action against the petitioner. 

“What is expected of a prudent person is that, before putting up any kind of message on social group, a person like the petitioner who is educated and teacher by profession should also think about the pros and cons which might occur due to sending online messages through her social media account (WhatsApp). In such a situation, she subsequently adopting a defence that, she has now realised those messages were controversial and posted them due to her deranged mental condition will not be helpful to her, as it will be duty of police to further investigate and find out in these circumstances where she herself claims that families of her father and mother are from the neighbouring country, Pakistan,” the order read.  

The Bench cited several Supreme Court judgments to underline that the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC is an exception, not the norm. Referring to State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992), Rajeev Kourav vs. Baisahab (2020), and Kaptan Singh v. State of U.P. (2021), the court reiterated that at the FIR stage, appreciation of evidence or conducting a “mini-trial“ is impermissible. 

It also referenced CBI vs. Aryan Singh (2023), where the apex court cautioned High Courts against pre-trial evaluations while deciding quashing petitions.  

In a recent case, the Allahabad High Court’s view in Ashraf Khan alias Nisrat Khan vs. State of U.P. (2025), where bail was denied to an accused who had posted derogatory content against the Prime Minister and Indian military during an India-Pakistan conflict, the Bench observed that freedom of speech does not extend to content that disrespects national figures, incites disharmony, or undermines national unity and integrity. It noted the growing misuse of social media under the guise of free expression and agreed such actions threaten public order and deserve legal scrutiny. 

“The police are yet to file charge sheet, therefore, at this stage, according to us, the FIR cannot be quashed. After hearing advocates for both sides and perusing the record, we had in fact given an opportunity to learned advocate appearing for petitioners, to withdraw the present petition and file an application for discharge before the trial court, if police files charge sheet. However, on the next day, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is inviting an Order on merits and does not wish to withdraw the writ petition,” the Bench observed.  

After considering the contents of the FIR and the various documents on record, the court said, “We are satisfied that it constitutes the ingredients of the alleged offences. Also taking into account the law as laid down by the Supreme Court, we find that there is no merit in the present Petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. Hence, present petition stands dismissed,” the court observed. 

Share This Article
Leave a Comment