Chhattisgarh HC Quashes FIR Against Assam Men Who Reshared Facebook Cartoon About Governor, After Unconditional Apology

The High Court of Chhattisgarh quashed an FIR and charge-sheet against two Assam residents who reshared a Facebook cartoon about the Chhattisgarh Governor, accepting their unconditional apology and the State Government’s express consent for settlement.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, led by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, quashed FIR No. 232/2026 dated 19 April 2026 and the consequential Charge-sheet No. 345/2026, registered against two residents of Kamrup district, Assam — Pranab Kalita and Lakshyadhar Rajbongshi — for resharing a cartoon-style post on Facebook that allegedly concerned the Governor of Chhattisgarh. The bench found that the State Government had itself consented to settlement subject to stringent conditions, the petitioners had tendered unconditional written apologies, and continuation of the prosecution would serve no useful purpose. The order, delivered on 21 August 2026, was passed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Facebook Post and the FIR

The case arose from events in April 2026. A cartoon-style post allegedly concerning the Governor of Chhattisgarh was originally uploaded by co-accused Ankur Ali on 15 April 2026. The two petitioners reshared the post on their respective Facebook accounts, adding a brief caption in the Assamese language.

On 19 April 2026, FIR No. 232/2026 was registered at Civil Lines Police Station, Raipur, against the petitioners and others for offences punishable under Sections 352, 353(1) and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The petitioners maintained before the court that they had neither created nor authored the cartoon, and that resharing a publicly available post with a political comment was protected speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

During investigation, notices dated 20 May 2026 were issued to the petitioners under Section 179 of the BNSS. Apprehending arrest, they first moved the Gauhati High Court in A.B. Nos. 1221/2026 and 1222/2026, which granted interim protection by orders dated 9 June 2026 for 30 days, specifically to allow them to approach the competent court. The petitioners then filed CRMP No. 1560 of 2026 before the High Court of Chhattisgarh seeking quashing of the FIR and a direction against coercive action.

Charge-Sheet Filed Mid-Hearing

While the quashing petition was pending, the investigating agency completed its work and filed Charge-sheet No. 345/2026 on 13 August 2026 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur. The State filed a copy before this court with a covering memo dated 14 August 2026.

On 18 August 2026, the petitioners filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking leave to amend their petition so as to also challenge the charge-sheet. They filed a copy of the charge-sheet in the proceedings on the same date.

This sequence — a charge-sheet arriving while a quashing petition is pending — required the bench to consider whether to expand the scope of challenge or find another route to resolution.

Settlement Terms Proposed by the Governor’s Secretariat

On 17 August 2026, the office of the Governor proposed conditions for settlement. When the matter came up on 19 August 2026, counsel for the petitioners stated that his clients were willing to tender an unconditional apology, remove the objectionable post from Facebook, and take steps for withdrawal or closure of a counter-case registered in Assam.

The State Government formalised its consent through General Administration Department Letter No. LAW-42015/6131/2026-GAD-1 dated 18 August 2026, conveying agreement to settlement subject to the conditions proposed by the Governor’s Secretariat (Lok Bhavan) vide Letter No. 3304/OSD/LB/2026 dated 17 August 2026. The conditions, as quoted in the judgment, required the petitioners to:

• Tender an unconditional written apology before the court, acknowledging the prejudice caused to the dignity of the Governor’s office and undertaking not to repeat such conduct;
• Publish a clear and unconditional apology on the same Facebook account with the same prominence as the original post, reaching the same audience that saw it;
• Publish the apology in specified Assamese-language newspapers — Pratidin, Amar Asom, and Dainik Asom — with the format, wording, and prominence to be agreed by both sides;
• Permanently remove the objectionable post from all digital and social media platforms under their control, and undertake not to republish, reshare, or circulate the disputed material in future; and
• Withdraw or secure closure of the counter FIR registered in Assam.

The petitioners filed affidavits dated 20 August 2026 confirming compliance with these conditions and tendering the required apology. In their affidavit, they stated: “the Petitioners tender sincere apology to his Excellency, The Governor of Chhattisgarh and hereby undertake to delete all Facebook posts.” They also confirmed that the FIR lodged by the wife of Petitioner No. 1 against the complainant in the present case — Kamalpur P.S. Case No. 59/2026 — would be withdrawn.

How the Bench Reasoned on Section 528 BNSS

The bench acknowledged that the power under Section 528 of the BNSS is extraordinary and cannot be exercised merely because parties have reached a compromise. It applied the principles reiterated by the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, which require the High Court, when exercising inherent powers in non-compoundable cases, to examine the nature and gravity of the offence, its societal impact, and the circumstances of settlement.

Applying those parameters, the bench made three findings. First, the allegations arose from publication and republication of a social-media post; there was no allegation of physical violence or heinous criminal conduct. Second, the settlement was not a private arrangement between the petitioners and the complainant: the State Government itself, after considering the matter at the governmental level, had expressly consented to ending the proceedings subject to stringent conditions. Third, those conditions were specifically designed to undo, to the extent possible, the harm allegedly caused to the dignity of a constitutional office — through public apology at the same prominence as the original post, newspaper publication, and permanent removal of the material.

The bench held that in these circumstances, insisting on continuation of the prosecution would not advance the cause of justice. It recorded that continuation would, in fact, amount to an abuse of the process of law, warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

Outcome

The Division Bench allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 232/2026 dated 19 April 2026 registered at Civil Lines Police Station, Raipur, along with Charge-sheet No. 345/2026 dated 11 August 2026, insofar as they related to the two petitioners. All pending applications were also disposed of.

The bench directed that the relief would remain subject to the petitioners’ compliance with all settlement conditions: the unconditional apology already tendered before the court, publication of the apology on Facebook with requisite prominence, permanent removal of the objectionable material from all digital and social media platforms, filing of an undertaking not to repeat such conduct, and taking appropriate steps for withdrawal or closure of the counter-case in Assam. The petitioners were directed to comply with these conditions forthwith.