In a petition filed before the Chhattisgarh High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking setting aside of a First Information Report (FIR) dated 19-04-2026 under Sections 352, 353(1), 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, along with all consequential proceedings and investigative steps, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal quashed the FIR and the chargesheet subject to the terms and conditions of the settlement between the petitioners and the State.
It was alleged that the petitioners shared a cartoon-style post allegedly concerning the Governor of Chhattisgarh along with a brief Assamese-language caption, on their respective Facebook accounts. The petitioners contended that they neither created nor authored the said cartoon and merely reshared the publicly available post along with a brief political comment. During investigation, notices dated 20-05-2026 were issued to the petitioners under Section 179 of BNSS, after which they sought further time to appear before the Investigating Officer.
Apprehending coercive action, the petitioners approached the Gauhati High Court and received interim protection for 30 days by order dated 09-06-2026 to enable them to approach the competent court. Hence, the petitioners approached this Court. During the pendency of the present petition, the investigation was completed and a chargesheet was filed on 13-08-2026 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application on 18-08-2026, seeking leave to amend the petition filed to challenge the chargesheet.
The petitioners submitted that they were willing to tender an unconditional apology, to remove the objectionable post from Facebook, and to take steps for withdrawal of the counter-case lodged in Assam. It was also submitted that State Government had no objection to the matter being settled as the petitioners had the petitioners had submitted affidavits to acknowledge the prejudice caused to the dignity of the office of the Governor.
The Court noted that the State, by a letter dated 18-08-2026, had conveyed its consent for settlement of the dispute between the parties, subject to acceptance of the terms and conditions suggested by the Secretariat of the Governor by a letter dated 17-08-2026. The terms and conditions included an unconditional apology before the court, a public apology on Facebook, publication of the apology on newspapers, complete removal of the objectionable post, and to close the counterblast FIR registered in Assam. The Court noted that the said apology and undertaking to comply with the terms and conditions were supported by the petitioners’ affidavits.
Noting that the matter had been considered at the governmental level and the subsequent development, the Court opined that continuation of the criminal proceedings would not advance any fruitful purpose, particularly when the State itself had agreed to the settlement subject to compliance with the stipulated conditions. The Court also referred to the principles reiterated by the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688, and found that the allegations, though relating to an objectionable social-media publication concerning a constitutional functionary, did not disclose any allegation of physical assault or other heinous criminal conduct. It was said that the settlement could not be said to be contrary to public interest or opposed to the administration of criminal justice.
The FIR and the chargesheet were quashed. However, the quashing was done subject to the conditions which formed part of the settlement. Thus, the petition was allowed.
