Gujarat HC Quashes Defamation FIR Against Man Who Only Forwarded a WhatsApp Newspaper Cutting

Merely forwarding a newspaper photograph on WhatsApp to one person, without forging or composing any content, does not attract Sections 469, 500, or 501 IPC, the Gujarat High Court held.

The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad has quashed an FIR registered against Kaushalbhai Jagdishbhai Asodiya for allegedly circulating a fake newspaper cutting via WhatsApp. Justice P. M. Raval, sitting singly, allowed the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and set aside FIR No. CR No.I-11191041211787 of 2021 registered with the Shaherkotda Police Station, Ahmedabad City, along with all consequential proceedings — but only insofar as they concerned the petitioner. The court found that the entire role attributed to the petitioner was forwarding a photograph of a newspaper to one co-accused, and that neither the FIR nor the chargesheet disclosed any material to attract the forgery or defamation provisions invoked against him.

The FIR and the Allegations Against the Petitioner

The complaint was filed by a person described in the FIR as a Public Notary, a member of the Bahujan Samaj Party, an NGO operator, and the publisher of a magazine called Nyayik Samiksha. On 5 July 2021, the complainant's brother received a WhatsApp message from one Nimesh Dodiya, accused No. 1 in the FIR, which the complainant alleged was fake news. The brother asked accused No. 1 which newspaper the cutting had come from; no answer was given.

Separately, on 6 July 2021, the complainant himself received a photograph of a newspaper cutting on WhatsApp from a friend, who likewise did not disclose its origin. The allegation was that this cutting was fabricated and was circulated by the accused persons in concert to defame the complainant and his political party. A cross-complaint had also been filed earlier by both sides at the same police station following a quarrel on 2 July 2021.

The FIR named multiple accused and charged them under Sections 469 (forgery for purpose of harming reputation), 500 (defamation), 501 (printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory), 120B (criminal conspiracy), and 114 (abettor present when offence is committed) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The specific and only role attributed to the present petitioner was that he forwarded a photograph of a newspaper called Young Leader, Ahmedabad, to one Nishyal Jashavantbhai Sangani. Sangani then forwarded that same photograph to the complainant. The petitioner had no further involvement alleged in the FIR or the chargesheet.

Why Section 469 IPC Did Not Apply

Justice Raval examined the ingredients of Section 469 IPC, which requires that a person first forge a document with the intention to harm another's reputation, or knowing that it is likely to be used for that purpose. The court observed that both the FIR and the chargesheet were “conspicuously silent with regards to harming reputation.”

The court found not an iota of evidence collected during investigation, and no whisper in either the FIR or the chargesheet, to show that the petitioner forged the newspaper cutting. The petitioner had merely forwarded a photograph of an existing newspaper — the Young Leader — to a single individual. There was no allegation that he composed, fabricated, or altered any content.

The court also pointed to a significant gap in the prosecution's own case: neither the publisher nor the editor of the Young Leader newspaper had been made an accused in the FIR or in the chargesheet, despite being the persons who allegedly published the defamatory statement in the first place. This absence further undermined the basis for roping in the petitioner for forwarding a photograph of that publication.

Defamation Offences and the Non-Cognizable Bar

On Sections 500 and 501 IPC, the court noted a procedural bar that independently vitiated the FIR as against the petitioner. Both offences are non-cognizable. To attract these provisions, the aggrieved person is required to lodge a complaint under Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C. before the jurisdictional Magistrate. An FIR registered directly at a police station is not maintainable for non-cognizable offences without a Magistrate's order. The court held that no offence under Section 500 or 501 was made out against the petitioner on the facts, and this procedural deficiency compounded the position.

Taking the allegations as a whole, even accepting them at face value, the court concluded that what the petitioner forwarded “would also not fall within the four corners of the definition of Section 469 of IPC namely defamation.” Sections 120B and 114 IPC, which rest on an underlying offence being established, accordingly also fell away.

The Co-Accused Precedent and the Bhajanlal Framework

The court noted that the co-accused Nishyal Jashavantbhai Sangani — the very person to whom the petitioner forwarded the newspaper photograph, and who then forwarded it to the complainant — had filed a separate quashing petition being Criminal Misc. Application No. 859 of 2022. That petition was allowed by a coordinate bench of the Gujarat High Court by order dated 9 September 2024. Sangani's role in the chain of forwarding was closer to the complainant than the petitioner's, yet his FIR was quashed. The petitioner's position was therefore at least as strong, if not stronger, given that his act was one step further removed.

Justice Raval then applied the framework set out by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. B. Bhajanlal & Ors., reported in AIR 1992 SC 604. The court referenced the categories enumerated in paragraph 102 of that judgment under which inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be exercised to quash an FIR. It held that the present case fell “prima facie within the parameters laid down in paragraph 102 of the said case, more particularly, 5 and 7” — that is, where the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person could find sufficient ground to proceed, and where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide or are instituted with an ulterior motive.

The court was also careful to restate the limits of the Section 482 jurisdiction. The inherent power is wide but must be exercised with great caution. It should not be used to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Where facts are hazy or incomplete, or where evidence has not been collected and the issues are of sufficient magnitude, the High Court should refrain from intervening. But where, as here, even taking the FIR and chargesheet entirely at face value reveals no offence, continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law.

Order

Justice P. M. Raval allowed the petition. FIR No. CR No.I-11191041211787 of 2021 registered with the Shaherkotda Police Station, Ahmedabad City, along with all consequential proceedings, was quashed and set aside with respect to the petitioner Kaushalbhai Jagdishbhai Asodiya only. The rule was made absolute to that extent. Direct service was permitted. The order was pronounced on 22 July 2026.