The Chhattisgarh High Court has declined to quash criminal proceedings against several individuals accused of making allegedly objectionable remarks about the Hindu religion during a public gathering in Jashpur district. The Court held that the allegations and evidence collected during the investigation disclose a prima facie case and that disputed factual issues should be examined during trial, not in a petition seeking quashing of proceedings.
Background of the Case
The case arose from FIR No. 32/2024 registered at Police Station Kunkuri following a complaint by a member of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. According to the complaint, the petitioners participated in a public meeting organised by Bharat Mukti Morcha and Rashtriya Christian Morcha on February 27, 2024, at Saliyatoli Mini Stadium, Kunkuri.
The complainant alleged that certain speeches delivered during the event contained remarks derogatory to the Hindu religion and public personalities. After investigation, police filed a chargesheet, and the Judicial Magistrate First Class framed charges under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code. A criminal revision challenging that order was later dismissed, prompting the petitioners to approach the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Petitioners' Arguments
The petitioners argued that their speeches were protected under the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression. They contended that the statements reflected criticism of social and religious practices rather than an intention to promote hatred or insult any religion.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
They also submitted that even if the allegations in the FIR were accepted as true, the essential ingredients of the offences invoked by the prosecution were not satisfied. According to them, continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the legal process.
Court's Observations
The Division Bench observed that while freedom of speech is a valuable constitutional right, determining whether the speeches remained within constitutional protection or crossed into criminal conduct requires appreciation of evidence during trial.
The Bench said,
“The question whether the statements in issue amount to legitimate criticism or cross the threshold into conduct punishable under the penal provisions... is essentially a matter requiring appreciation of evidence.”
The Court further noted that the investigation was supported by witness statements, pamphlets, video recordings of the public meeting and other material collected by the investigating agency. At the stage of deciding a quashing petition, the Court cannot conduct a detailed examination of the evidence or assess the truthfulness of rival claims.
Referring to settled Supreme Court precedents, the High Court reiterated that its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where no prima facie offence is disclosed.
Decision
Finding that the FIR, chargesheet and investigation material disclosed a prima facie case, the High Court refused to interfere with the criminal proceedings. It dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the FIR, chargesheet, order framing charges and the revisional order.
The Court clarified that its observations were limited to deciding the quashing petition and should not influence the trial court while deciding the case on its merits.
Case Details
Case Title: Sunil Kumar Xalxo and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Case Number: CRMP No. 1532 of 2026
Judge: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Decision Date: 17 June 2026
-300x169.webp)
