Court rules against successive FIRs, orders investigation into defamatory social media allegations
In a significant ruling, the Uttarakhand High Court has quashed two FIRs lodged against former MLA Suresh Rathore and actress Urmila Sanavar, underscoring the principle against successive FIRs for the same incident. The decision comes amidst allegations of defamatory content being spread on social media with potential political motivations.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, addressed a series of FIRs implicating Rathore and Sanavar under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. The FIRs alleged that defamatory videos were uploaded on social media to malign the reputation of Dushyant Kumar Gautam, a political figure, and falsely implicate him in a murder case.
The court quashed FIR Nos. 0356/2025 and 0534/2025, noting that they were filed by individuals who were neither victims nor affected parties, and contained allegations identical to those in FIR No. 0004/2026 filed by Gautam himself. Citing the Supreme Court precedent in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, Justice Thapliyal emphasized that no second FIR is permissible for the same occurrence.
However, the court refused to quash FIR No. 0420/2025 and FIR No. 0004/2026, as they were lodged by actual victims and disclosed prima facie cognizable offences. The allegations of uploading defamatory content, particularly in politically charged contexts, were deemed serious enough to warrant a thorough investigation.
The court's decision highlights the misuse of social media platforms for spreading defamatory content, especially in politically motivated cases. It calls for careful scrutiny and investigation into the allegations, ensuring that digital platforms are not misused for personal or political gain.
Bottom Line:
Quashing of FIRs - FIRs lodged by persons who are neither victims nor affected parties and contain allegations similar to an earlier FIR lodged by the actual victim are liable to be quashed under the principle laid down in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 154, 482, 2(wa) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Sections 336(4), 353(2), 356(3), 61(2), 248(b), 308(7), 351(2), 352, 79 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Sections 66D, 66E, 67 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008; Article 226 Constitution of India.
Suresh Rathore v. State of Uttarakhand, (Uttarakhand) : Law Finder Doc id # 2915651
