SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed a five-year-old FIR against a Jammu man accused of spreading a COVID-19 rumour on WhatsApp, ruling that the creation of panic or fear, by itself, does not constitute an offence under Section 505(2) of the IPC unless the alleged statement was intended or likely to promote enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups.
Justice M A Chowdhary, in a judgment pronounced on August 7, 2026, held that the allegations against Sandeep Kumar Bhat did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence and that the continuation of proceedings, despite the investigation remaining incomplete for more than five years, would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Bhat, a resident of the TRT Camp at Nagrota, Jammu, had approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking quashing of FIR No. 146 of 2020 registered at Police Station Nagrota on March 28, 2020. He was accused of an offence under Section 505(2) IPC.
The petitioner was represented by advocate Ayushman Kotwal. The Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir was represented by advocate Shazia Asaf, appearing in place of Deputy Advocate General P D Singh.
According to the FIR, Bhat had allegedly circulated a message in a WhatsApp group on March 28, 2020, stating that two positive COVID-19 cases had been detected at the Migrant Colony, Jagti, Nagrota, allegedly creating panic in society.
The petitioner challenged the FIR on the ground that even if the allegation was accepted at face value, it did not constitute an offence under Section 505(2) IPC. He argued that there was neither an allegation nor evidence that the message was circulated with the intention or likelihood of creating enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups.
The petitioner also pointed out that the investigation had still not culminated in the filing of a final report. A status report submitted by the SHO concerned before the Excise Magistrate, Jammu, on February 11, 2025, had stated that the investigation was “almost complete” and that the challan would be presented shortly.
The UT opposed the plea, arguing that the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction should not be invoked to examine the allegations or to frustrate the normal course of criminal proceedings. The prosecution maintained that the petition did not fall within the scope of the jurisdiction invoked by Bhat and sought dismissal of the petition.
Justice Chowdhary, however, found that the basic ingredients of Section 505(2) IPC were absent from the allegation itself.
The Court noted that the provision applies when a person makes, publishes or circulates a statement, rumour or report with the intention to create, or which is likely to create or promote, “feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups” on specified grounds such as religion, race, caste, community or language.
“In the present case,” the Court observed, “the allegation against the petitioner is only that he circulated a message regarding detection of two Covid-19 positive cases in a particular locality, which allegedly created panic.”
There was no allegation, the Court said, that the message was intended to create or was likely to create feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between any two groups on any of the grounds contemplated under Section 505(2).
“The creation of panic or fear, by itself, does not satisfy the ingredients of the offence under Section 505(2) IPC,” Justice Chowdhary held.
The Court also found it significant that even after nearly five years of investigation, the UT had not placed any material demonstrating that Bhat possessed the requisite intention or that the message was likely to promote enmity or hatred between different groups.
The status report, the Court said, did not disclose any evidence establishing the “foundational ingredients” of the offence. Nor was it shown that the information circulated by Bhat was false or fabricated.
The Court further relied on the prolonged delay in completing the investigation. It noted that Section 505(2) IPC carries a maximum punishment of three years and that Section 468 CrPC prescribes a three-year limitation period for taking cognisance of such an offence.
The FIR was registered on March 28, 2020, but no final report had been presented even after more than five years.
“The respondents have failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation for such extraordinary delay,” the Court said.
Justice Chowdhary held that allowing the investigation to continue indefinitely, in the absence of material disclosing commission of the alleged offence, would itself amount to an abuse of the process of law.
“It is well settled that where the allegations made in the FIR, even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law,” the Court observed.
The High Court consequently held that the allegations in the FIR did not disclose commission of an offence under Section 505(2) IPC and that continuation of the criminal proceedings beyond the statutory period would serve no useful purpose and result in miscarriage of justice.
The Court accordingly allowed Bhat’s petition and quashed FIR No. 146 of 2020, along with all consequential proceedings arising from it.
The judgment was reserved on August 3 and pronounced at Jammu on August 7, 2026.
