MP High Court: No Quashing of FIR Over Hindu Deities Video Despite Amicable Settlement

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to quash a 2019 FIR against a police constable accused of uploading a video on Hindu deities.
• The court held that compromise between the parties cannot override public interest in offenses affecting communal harmony and public order.
• The ruling aligns with the Supreme Court's stance on quashing criminal proceedings touching upon social impact.
• Government employees accused of crimes affecting public order may face continued prosecution despite a compromise, prioritizing societal interest over individual interests.

The court must weigh not merely the complainant's wishes but the 'nature and gravity of the offences alleged.'

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently refused to quash a 2019 FIR against a police constable accused of uploading and circulating a video on Hindu deities. The FIR was registered under Sections 295-A, 153-A, and 505(2) IPC, provisions dealing with acts intended to outrage religious feelings, promote enmity between groups, and statements conducive to public mischief. The case has been ongoing since its registration, with the accused and complainant arriving at an amicable settlement during the pendency of proceedings. However, this compromise was not enough to persuade the court to quash the FIR.

The court's decision is significant in light of the principles enshrined in the former Indian Penal Code sections 295-A, 153-A, and 505(2), which have been replaced by corresponding provisions in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, effective July 1, 2024, and deal with offenses affecting public order and communal harmony. The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that compromise between the parties cannot override the public interest in such cases. This ruling aligns with the Supreme Court's consistent stance on quashing criminal proceedings touching upon social impact. In this case, the court weighed not only the complainant's wishes but also the nature and gravity of the offenses alleged, ultimately siding with the State.

The refusal to quash the FIR has important implications for lawyers representing government employees accused of crimes affecting public order. Even if a compromise is reached between the parties, courts may refuse to quash FIRs in such cases, prioritizing the impact on communal harmony and societal interest over individual interests. This ruling underscores the need for careful consideration of the legal context and potential consequences when advising clients in similar situations.

Lawyers representing government employees accused of crimes affecting public order should be aware that courts may refuse to quash FIRs even with a compromise between the parties, as the court's primary concern is the impact on communal harmony and societal interest.

Source: Original reporting via [Source Name]