Chennai: The Madras High Court has quashed the FIR registered against the person who made controversial comments on Facebook regarding the death of the country's first CDS General Bipin Rawat. Let us inform that CDS General Rawat died in a helicopter crash in December 2021. The High Court considered the post made after his death as reprehensible, but also said that it is not an offense under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Let us inform that in a Facebook post on 8 December 2021, G.K. of Kanyakumari district of Tamil Nadu. Shivrajabupathi wrote that 'It is a shame to shed tears for Bipin Rawat, the mercenary dictator of the fascists.'
The Nagercoil Cyber Crime Police had registered an FIR in this case on 15 December 2021. In the FIR, a total of 15 people who shared it with the writers of the post were made accused. The case was registered under sections 153, 505(2) and 504 IPC. According to media reports, this FIR of Tamil Nadu Police was named by accused G. Shivrajabupathi appealed to the High Court to cancel under 482 CrPC. A single bench of Justice GR Swaminathan quashed the FIR, observing that the post was reprehensible but not an offense under the IPC. Justice Swaminathan observed that, "definitely the behavior of the petitioner is hurtful to the sentiments of all the people". His Facebook post is embarrassing. But it should be decided on the basis of prescribed criteria. The main question is whether the act done comes under the category of cognizable offence. If not then the FIR should be quashed. Only the victim will have the right to complain. In this case, making an uncivilized remark against anyone through social media will not amount to section 153 (attempt to incite riots) of the IPC."
The court observed that, 'The victim has not been directly insulted by the Facebook post of the accused. This post was for his Facebook friends. However, anyone can access it. Posted on 8th December and complaint filed on 15th December. It may be that the complainant himself saw it by chance or someone showed it to him. Therefore, section 504 of IPC also does not apply to the accused. Spreading enmity between 2 classes On Section 506 (2) of the IPC, the judge said, 'The post of the petitioner does not include 2 groups. Nor does it make any mention of religion, caste, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community. There is nothing like trying to pit one group against another. Therefore, there is no ground to punish the petitioner in this case.
Justice Swaminathan further observed that, 'The petitioner deserves to criticize the legacy of CDS General Rawat, but his manner of criticism is not in accordance with Tamil culture. I wish that the petitioner should read that last chapter of Mahabharata when all the characters are dead and Yudhishthira is the last left to go. While entering heaven, he was surprised to see Duryodhana there. He got angry and started abusing Duryodhana. Then Narada interrupted him to do so and explained that, while living in heaven, all the enmity ends. Don't say this about Duryodhana. However, I am not familiar with the ideological background of the petitioner. Maybe he is allergic to national epics.'