“Those who are blood thirsty, listen to us. If a fight for our rights is met with injustice, we will meet that injustice with love. If drops flowing from a candle are like a flame, we will use it to light up all paths if bodies of our loved ones are a threat to your throne. We swear by God that we will bury our loved ones happily. Those who are blood thirsty, listen to us.”

The poem does not refer to any religion, caste or language. It does not refer to persons belonging to any religion. By no stretch of imagination, does it promote enmity between different groups. We fail to understand how statements therein are detrimental to national unity. On its plain reading, the poem does not purport to affect anyone’s religious feelings.

At this stage, we cannot resist the temptation of quoting what Bose and Puranik JJ authored as Judges of erstwhile Nagpur High Court in Bhagwati Charan Shukla v. Provincial Government, C.P. & Berar, 1946 SCC OnLine MP 5 quoted with approval by this Court in Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 4 SCC 156. The effect of spoken or written words cannot be judged on basis of standards of people who always have a sense of insecurity or of those who always perceive criticism as a threat to power or position.

There is no blanket rule putting an embargo on powers of High Courts to quash FIRs only on ground that investigations were at a nascent stage.

More than two decades ago in Anand Chintamani Dighe v. State of Maharashtra, 2001 SCC OnLine Bom 891 Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud highlighted eternal values on which Constitution of a democracy is founded. Right of a playwright, artist, writer and of a poet will be reduced to husk if freedom to portray a message is to depend upon popular perception of acceptability. Popular perceptions cannot override constitutional values such as guarantee of freedom. 75 years in, we cannot be seen to be so shaky on our fundamentals.

– Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka, Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, [Criminal Appeal No. 1545 of 2025].

_____

I, when at Bombay High Court, had taken a contrary view. Judges are duty-bound to correct their mistakes in properly constituted proceedings. Even for Judges, learning process always continues. High Court can invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 or Section 528 of The Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash proceedings initiated under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. High Court should be very slow and circumspect. Interference can be made only when case is clearly of gross illegality or gross abuse of process of law.

– Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka, Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal, [Criminal Appeal No. 2688 of 2025] decided on 19.05.2025.