'Affects Communal Harmony, Can't Quash On Compromise': MP High Court Upholds FIR Against Constable For Posts On Hindu Deities

The Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to quash the FIR against a Police Constable who uploaded and circulated a video on Facebook about Hindu Deities, observing that the alleged offences have a direct bearing on societal interest and communal harmony and therefore cannot be quashed solely on the compromise reached between the parties. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 321]

Noting that the alleged offences related to deliberate acts to outrage religious feelings, the bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi held,

"The offences under Sections 295-A, 153-A and 505(2) IPC relate to deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings, promotion of enmity between different groups and dissemination of statements conducive to public mischief. Such offences are not merely personal wrongs but are offences having a direct bearing upon public peace, communal harmony and societal interest. The Supreme Court has consistently held that serious offences having social impact cannot ordinarily be quashed solely on the basis of compromise between the parties". 

A petition was filed by a Constable in the Police Radio Department, seeking to quash an FIR against him for promoting enmity between groups (Section 153A), deliberate acts to outrage religious feelings (Section 295A), and statements creating or promoting enmity (Section 505) of the IPC. 

Per the facts, the complainant (respondent no 2) submitted a written complaint alleging that the applicant, along with co-accused, uploaded, shared, and circulated a video on Facebook, among other social media platforms, relating to Hindu Deities in a manner that allegedly hurt the religious sentiments of the Hindu Community members and had the potential to create disharmony between different groups. An FIR was thereafter registered. 

Subsequently, departmental proceedings were initiated against the applicant, and a chargesheet was issued. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the applicant and respondent no 2 compromised, and respondent no 2 submitted an affidavit stating that the matter had arisen due to misunderstanding and that he no longer desired to pursue the criminal proceedings. 

 The counsel for the applicant claimed that there was no direct evidence establishing that he had intentionally circulated or uploaded objectionable material with the intention of outraging religious feelings.

The Government Advocate appearing for the State argued that the offence alleged against the applicant is not a private dispute as it affects public order, communal harmony, and religious sentiments. Therefore, even if a compromise was reached between parties, such a compromise cannot itself be sufficient ground to quash the FIR. 

The court noted that the offences alleged against the applicant are not merely personal wrongs but offences having a direct bearing on public peace, communal harmony, and societal interest. Relying on the Supreme Court's opinion, the bench reiterated that serious offences having societal impact cannot be quashed solely on compromise between parties. 

Further, the bench held that the fact whether the applicant had intentionally shared such objectionable material ought to be examined by the Trial Court upon appreciation of evidence. Therefore, the court refused to quash the FIR and dismissed the petition. 

"The compromise entered into between the complainant and the applicant may be a relevant circumstance during the course of trial; however, considering the nature of the allegations and the offences involved, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent powers for quashing the FIR and criminal proceedings". 

Case Title: Soma Singh Dhruve v State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC-13443-2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 321

For Petitioner: Advocate Chhoti Kushram

For State: Government Advocate Priyanka Mishra

Click here to read/download the Order