The Bombay High Court has quashed a criminal case against an engineering student booked over an Instagram repost concerning the India-Pakistan conflict, observing that the allegations did not sufficiently establish the criminal intention required under the invoked provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
Background
In Khadeejah Shahabuddin Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Others, the prosecution alleged that the student had reposted contentious social media content relating to the India-Pakistan conflict on May 7, 2025. According to the complaint, the post contained religiously sensitive material with communal overtones and had the potential to disturb public peace.
Following the incident, Kondhwa Police Station registered FIR No. 380 of 2025 on May 9, 2025, invoking Sections 152, 196, 197, 299, 352 and 353 of the BNS, 2023.
The applicant approached the High Court seeking to quash the FIR. Her counsel submitted that she had not created the original content and had removed the repost within two hours. She had also publicly expressed remorse and tendered an apology. The defence further argued that the FIR did not disclose sufficient material establishing the criminal intention required for the alleged offences.
The State opposed the application, arguing that reposting content could also attract criminal liability and that deleting the post or apologising would not automatically extinguish such liability.
Justice Milind N. Jadhav examined the applicant's role, the circumstances surrounding the repost and the allegations recorded in the FIR. The Court acknowledged that the content was contentious and required sensitivity, particularly given its potential impact on relations between religious communities.
However, the Bench emphasised that objectionable content and criminal conduct are not necessarily the same.
The Court observed:
"The distinction between content which may be objectionable and conduct which constitutes a criminal offence therefore cannot be overlooked."
The judgment noted that the applicant was not the original author of the post and had voluntarily removed it within two hours, followed by a public apology. While these circumstances did not automatically determine her intention when the content was first shared, the Court considered them relevant to assessing the allegations.
It also found that the FIR did not disclose sufficient material demonstrating how her conduct satisfied the essential ingredients of the offences invoked. No actual incident of communal disturbance attributable to the repost had been brought to the Court's notice.
The Court further observed:
"The apprehension of a possible disturbance cannot substitute for the specific acts, intention or knowledge required by law."
Considering the applicant's age, educational background and lack of criminal antecedents, the Court also noted that the incident appeared to be an isolated act rather than continued dissemination of the content.
Justice Jadhav held that the allegations did not sufficiently establish the requisite criminal intention or other essential ingredients of the alleged offences. The Court concluded that continuing the criminal proceedings would not serve a legitimate purpose in the circumstances of the case.
Accordingly, the Bombay High Court allowed the criminal application and quashed FIR No. 380 of 2025, registered at Kondhwa Police Station under the relevant provisions of the BNS, 2023.
The application was disposed of on October 27, 2026.
Case Details
- Case Title: Khadeejah Shahabuddin Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Others
- Case Number: Criminal Application No. 598 of 2025
- Judge: Justice Milind N. Jadhav
- Decision Date: October 27, 2026
