MP High Court Rejects Journalist's Plea To Quash FIR Over WhatsApp Message Claiming Beef Consumption Essential For Being Good Hindu

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a journalist's plea seeking quashing of an FIR for allegedly forwarding a seven-page message in a WhatsApp group claiming that beef consumption is essential for being a good Hindu. 

The bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke observed that the matter involves allegations of publication or circulation of material capable of hurting religious sentiments or promoting disharmony.  The court said,

"The allegations contained in the impugned FIR, when taken at their face value, disclose prima facie ingredients of the offences invoked. Whether the Petitioner acted with deliberate and malicious intention, whether the extract was quoted in good faith, and whether the content was merely academic or capable of disturbing public tranquillity and whether the Petitioner's post oversteps the permissible limits of free speech are the matters to be examined based on evidence collected during investigation. These are not issues that can be adjudicated at this preliminary stage".

As per prosecution case, complainant Ram Mohan Tiwari, submitted a complaint before Police Station Daboh District in Bhind alleging that on 26.09.2025 at about 10:00 PM, he was informed by another person that in the WhatsApp group titled “B P Bauddh Patrakar News Group”, the petitioner had posted a seven-page message containing derogatory and misleading comments regarding the Hindu religion and the Brahmin community.

It was alleged that the group was administered solely by the petitioner by BP Bauddh where only the administrator was permitted to post messages.

It was alleged that the forwarded message included assertions relating to ancient rituals, such as claims that "consuming beef was essential to being a good Hindu", bull sacrifices and meat consumption were obligatory on certain occasions, Brahmins regularly consumed bovine meat, and cows and bulls were allegedly slaughtered in various religious ceremonies.

It was alleged that the message also contained several offensive remarks targeting the Brahmin community. As the cow is held in high reverence in Hinduism, the said post has deeply hurt the complainant's religious sentiments as well as other Hindu and Brahmin community members. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint filed by the complainant, the FIR was registered against the petitioner.

Aggrieved, the journalist approached the High Court seeking to quash the FIR registered for Acts promoting disharmony between groups [Section 196(1)], deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings [Section 299], and punishment for making statements with false statements intended to commit mischief [Section 353(1)] and participating in activity likely to case fear among any group [Section 353(2)] of BNS. 

The counsel for the petitioner contended that the messages were shared in bona fide exercise of his fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression, shared certain excerpts from a scholarly literature, and were posted in good faith without any malicious intention. It was argued that the petitioner had shared certain excerpts from scholarly literature. 

It was submitted that the petitioner in exercise of his fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) had shared an excerpt belonging to a book authored by Dr Surendra Kumar Sharma (Agyaat), which, to the best of his knowledge, has not been banned by the Central or State Government. 

The extract was shared in a private WhatsApp group voluntarily joined by members interested in counter-narrative journalistic perspectives. The group was operated by the Petitioner in the ordinary course of his profession as a journalist, thereby attracting not only freedom of speech under Article 19(1) (a) but also freedom to practice his profession and freedom of the press.

Merely quoting or referring to an academic book relating to any caste or religion particularly when such book is not prohibited by the Central or State Government does not attract Section 196(1)(b) BNS. The Petitioner's act was neither prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between groups nor is capable of disturbing public tranquillity in any conceivable manner.

It was further alleged that on September 26, around 11:16 PM, Rajesh Sharma, who is the thana incharge of Daboh Police Station, sent a WhatsApp message directing that a complaint be brought against the petitioner, which reflects the premeditated and motivated approach adopted by the police authorities. 

It was further alleged that the petitioner, being a journalist, had recently published several news reports raising serious concerns regarding the conduct of local police, and thus, this FIR was nothing but a "retaliatory counter-blast initiated to silence a dissenting journalist". 

Meanwhile the counsel for the State contended that the FIR allegedly discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and therefore investigation was required to be conducted. 

The court noted that the petitioner's assertion of mala fides is also a question of fact, which would require evidence and cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Article 226 at the stage of investigation. 

"The mere assertion that the FIR is a counterblast to earlier journalistic reports cannot, in itself, justify quashing of the FIR when the allegations otherwise disclose cognizable offences", the bench added. 

Relying on the Supreme Court case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [AIR 1992 SC 604], the court reiterated that quashment was justified only in rarest of rare cases where allegations do not constitute any offences or are absurd and inherently improbable. 

Therefore, the court observed that when the FIR disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence, the investigation should proceed unhindered. 

Thus, the court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of FIR. 

Case Title: B.P. Bauddh v State of MP [WP-44600-2025]

For Petitioner: Advocate Aman Raghuwanshi

For State: Advocate Padamshri Agarwal

Click here to read/download Order