SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed a five-year-old First Information Report (FIR) registered against a Jammu resident accused of spreading rumours about COVID-19 cases on WhatsApp. The court ruled that the mere creation of panic or fear does not constitute an offence under Section 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) unless the statement was intended or likely to promote enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different groups.
Information was available with The Chenab Times that Justice M.A. Chowdhary, in a judgment pronounced on August 7, 2026, held that the allegations against Sandeep Kumar Bhat did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence. The court further stated that continuing the proceedings, with the investigation remaining incomplete for over five years, would amount to an abuse of the legal process.
Sandeep Kumar Bhat, a resident of the TRT Camp at Nagrota in Jammu, had approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. He sought the quashing of FIR No. 146 of 2020, which was registered at Police Station Nagrota on March 28, 2020, for an alleged offence under Section 505(2) of the IPC.
The petitioner was represented by advocate Ayushman Kotwal, while the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir was represented by advocate Shazia Asaf, appearing on behalf of the Deputy Advocate General P.D. Singh.
According to the FIR, Bhat had allegedly circulated a message in a WhatsApp group on March 28, 2020. The message claimed that two positive COVID-19 cases had been detected at the Migrant Colony in Jagti, Nagrota, which allegedly created panic in society.
The petitioner challenged the FIR, arguing that even if the allegations were accepted at face value, they did not constitute an offence under Section 505(2) of the IPC. He contended that there was neither an allegation nor any evidence that the message was circulated with the intention or likelihood of creating enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different groups.
Bhat also highlighted that the investigation had not culminated in the filing of a final report even after several years. A status report submitted by the Station House Officer concerned to the Excise Magistrate, Jammu, on February 11, 2025, had stated that the investigation was “almost complete” and that a challan would be presented shortly.
The Union Territory opposed the plea, arguing that the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction should not be invoked to examine allegations or to frustrate the normal course of criminal proceedings. The prosecution maintained that the petition did not fall within the scope of the jurisdiction invoked by Bhat and sought the dismissal of the petition.
Justice Chowdhary, however, found that the basic ingredients of Section 505(2) of the IPC were absent from the allegations presented.
The court noted that the provision applies when an individual makes, publishes, or circulates a statement, rumour, or report with the intention to create, or which is likely to create or promote, “feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups.” This promotion of ill-will must be based on specified grounds such as religion, race, caste, community, or language.
“In the present case,” the court observed, “the allegation against the petitioner is only that he circulated a message regarding detection of two Covid-19 positive cases in a particular locality, which allegedly created panic.”
The court further stated that there was no allegation that the message was intended to create, or was likely to create, feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill-will between any two groups on any of the grounds contemplated under Section 505(2).
“The creation of panic or fear, by itself, does not satisfy the ingredients of the offence under Section 505(2) IPC,” Justice Chowdhary held.
The court also found it significant that even after nearly five years of investigation, the Union Territory had not presented any material demonstrating that Bhat possessed the requisite intention or that the message was likely to promote enmity or hatred between different groups.
The status report, the court noted, did not disclose any evidence establishing the “foundational ingredients” of the offence. Furthermore, it was not shown that the information circulated by Bhat was false or fabricated.
The court also considered the prolonged delay in completing the investigation. It pointed out that Section 505(2) of the IPC carries a maximum punishment of three years, and Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) prescribes a three-year limitation period for taking cognizance of such an offence.
The FIR was registered on March 28, 2020, but no final report had been presented even after more than five years had elapsed.
“The respondents have failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation for such extraordinary delay,” the court stated.
Justice Chowdhary held that allowing the investigation to continue indefinitely, in the absence of material disclosing the commission of the alleged offence, would itself amount to an abuse of the process of law.
“It is well settled that where the allegations made in the FIR, even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law,” the court observed.
Consequently, the High Court held that the allegations in the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence under Section 505(2) of the IPC. The court further ruled that continuing the criminal proceedings beyond the statutory period would serve no useful purpose and would result in a miscarriage of justice.
The court accordingly allowed Bhat’s petition and quashed FIR No. 146 of 2020, along with all consequential proceedings arising from it. The judgment was reserved on August 3 and pronounced at Jammu on August 7, 2026.
❤️ Support Independent Journalism
Your contribution keeps our reporting free, fearless, and accessible to everyone.
Or make a one-time donation
Secure via Razorpay • 12 monthly payments • Cancel anytime before next cycle
(We don't allow anyone to copy content. For Copyright or Use of Content related questions, visit here.)
The Chenab Times News Desk
.){kind=link}