MP High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Congress Worker For Allegedly Posting 'Ludicrous' Posts & Videos Against PM Modi

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, recently, refused to quash an FIR filed against Yadvendra Pandey for allegedly posting a controversial video and ludicrous photos on Facebook, concerning PM Modi. The complaint also alleged Pandey used 'scurrilous language' against the Indian Armed Forces. 

The bench of Justice Vishal Mishra referred to the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure, noting the limited scope of interference in a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR. The bench emphasised that interference ought to occur in the rarest of the rare cases where no prima facie offence is made out. However, in the present case, the court noted that the prosecution had collected sufficient material against Pandey. 

"Under these circumstances, there cannot be any quashment of FIR and criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The grounds which are being raised are all matter of evidence that is to be establish before the trial Court. At this stage, it cannot be concluded that the allegations made in the complaint/FIR have a truth of ring or not or whether ingredients of the offences alleged are made out or not". 

The court reiterated that a High Court cannot embark upon an appreciation of evidence and undertake a detailed examination of facts at the stage of the FIR. Thus, noting that there was no material warranting an interference in the pending investigation, the court dismissed the plea, citing that it lacked merit. 

The case against Yadvendra Pandey, a member of the Indian National Congress Party, was that he had posted a ludicrous photo and had made a viral video on his Facebook account saying that the Prime Minister was under pressure from Pakistan and had withdrawn the attack on Pakistan. It was also alleged that he had used scurrilous language against the Indian Armed Forces. Thus, an FIR was registered against pandey for the offences under Sections 352, 197 and 162 of BNS 2023.

Seeking to quash the FIR, Pandey submitted that he had not posted the alleged video or photograph in his Facebook account. Pandey submitted that he was holding the post of Up-Sarpanch of Singhpur Gram Panchayat and the present compliant was filed by the respondents sinde Pandey had earlier made complaints against them regarding the forgery. Pandey also submitted that since the respondents, who belonged to the Bharatiya Janata Party, had a political enmity with him, they had pressurised the police to register the FIR.

Pandey contended that there was no intention or motive on his part to damage the reputation of the country. He also claimed that there was no prima facie case against him, and the present proceedings were only due to the political enmity. 

Opposing the plea, the State argued that there were sufficient materials available in the FIR to suggest that Pandey was prima facie involved in the alleged offence. The state submitted that the investigation was pending and that the police had the right to conduct the investigation. It was further submitted that if no material was found against Pandey, the closure report could be filed. Highlighting that the FIR should not be quashed unless and until the investigation is completed, the State sought to dismiss the plea.

The court noted that it had very limited scope for interference in a petition for quashing the FIR. The court added that it should be vigilant and should interfere only in rare of rarest cases where no offence has been prima facie made out in the FIR. In the present case, noting that there was prima facie material, the court refused to interfere with the investigation and dismissed the plea.