Punjab & Haryana HC Questions Whether FIR Quashing Petition Is Maintainable After Anticipatory Bail Rejection in PM Video Tweet Case

Justice Vikram Aggarwal has asked Chandigarh to file an affidavit and required parties to address the maintainability of a quashing petition after the petitioner’s anticipatory bail was already rejected.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declined to proceed on the merits of a petition seeking to quash an FIR registered against activist and author Madhu Purnima Kishwar over a tweet connected to a viral video clip purportedly showing the Prime Minister receiving a face massage. Justice Vikram Aggarwal, sitting singly, instead raised a threshold question: whether a quashing petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) can even be entertained once a coordinate bench of the same court has already rejected the petitioner’s anticipatory bail application. The matter has been listed for 25 August 2026.

The FIR and the Alleged Conduct

FIR No. 44 dated 19 April 2026 was registered at Police Station, Sector 26, Chandigarh, on a complaint filed by one Satinder Singh, Advocate. The complaint alleged that a video clip was being circulated by various social media users with misleading claims that it showed the Prime Minister receiving a face massage from a woman.

The FIR invoked Sections 196, 318, 336(1), 336(3), 336(4), 340, 353, and 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with Sections 66(C), 66(D), and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising from it.

Petitioner’s Account of the Tweets

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner along with Senior Advocate S.S. Narula and other counsel, placed the sequence of tweets before the court. According to him, a post was initially circulated by a Twitter account in the name of @MehakArora1541. The petitioner responded to that tweet without naming any individual and without making any reference to a constitutional authority.

One Zubair Mohammed subsequently tweeted that the petitioner’s response had implied the video related to the Prime Minister. Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner immediately replied to this second tweet, stating that the person in the video was “not likely to be the Prime Minister.” Several users then re-tweeted the video, and many came out in support of the petitioner, contending that she had never made any claim about the Prime Minister.

On the merits, Senior Counsel argued that even if every allegation in the FIR were accepted as correct, no offence under any of the invoked sections was made out. Each provision was addressed individually. Counsel also submitted that, at best, the conduct could amount to defamation, which is not a cognizable offence.

Prosecution’s Preliminary Objection

Manish Bansal, Public Prosecutor for U.T., Chandigarh, who appeared on advance notice, raised a preliminary objection. He informed the court that a coordinate bench of the High Court had already rejected the petitioner’s anticipatory bail application by order dated 29 May 2026, and produced a copy of that order. He further submitted that the investigation was still ongoing and that the quashing petition was therefore liable to be dismissed at this stage.

The Maintainability Question Raised by the Court

Justice Vikram Aggarwal declined to rule on the merits and instead identified a prior legal question that the parties must address. The court referred to a judgment of a coordinate bench in Kuldeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others (CRM-M-12541-2026, decided on 6 May 2026). That judgment was treated as potentially governing whether a quashing petition for an FIR remains maintainable or entertainable where the petitioner’s own anticipatory bail petition has already been dismissed.

The court directed U.T., Chandigarh to file an affidavit addressing the assertions made in the petition. Both parties were also required to address the maintainability question arising from Kuldeep Singh before the court proceeds further.

Order

The matter has been listed on 25 August 2026 and directed to be taken up in the urgent list. No interim relief or stay was granted. The court has not returned any finding on the merits of the alleged offences or on the petitioner’s account of the tweets.