Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a suo motu case based on media reports (Patrika, Dainik Bhaskar, Nayi Duniya — all dated 14-05-2025) and video footage circulating on digital platforms regarding a disparaging speech made by a sitting BJP minister Vijay Shah, against Col. Sofia Quraishi, a senior officer of the Indian Army, a Division Bench of Atul Sreedharan and Anuradha Shukla, JJ., directed that the entire order dated 14-05-2025 shall be read as part of para 12 of the FIR registered against the Minister Vijay Shah be read all judicial, quasi-judicial and investigating purposes.
In the instant matter, during a public function at Raikunda village in Ambedkar Nagar at Mhow, BJP minster Vijay Shah used scurrilous and offensive language against Col. Sofia Quraishi. She, along with Wing Commander Vyomika Singh, was representing the Armed Forces in media briefings related to Operation “Sindoor”, an operation launched by India against Pakistan.
At the event, the minister referred to Col. Quraishi as the ‘sister of the terrorists’ involved in the Pahalgam attack in which 26 Indian civilians were killed. He also made reference to the Prime Minister and stated that Mr. Modi had “sent the sister of the terrorists to sort them out.”
The Court, vide its order dated 14-05-2025, directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Madhya Pradesh, to register an FIR against Minster Vijay Shah by the evening of 14-05-2025, under Sections 152, 196(1)(b), and 197(1)(c) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). However, the Court noted that though the order is complied with, but the FIR does not contain the ingredients of the offences committed by the accused and is drafted in such a manner that it can be quashed.
The Attorney General submitted that they have complied with the court’s directive within the 4 hours, well within the time frame provided by the Court and the State should not be seen with suspicion.
However, the Court asserted that it was not questioning the time frame but the content of the FIR. The Court emphasised the Court is satisfied with the content of the FIR. The Court further stated that the present is not the case of murder but only one speech and the content of the speech and allegations against the accused is not present in FIR.
The Court opined that FIRs get quashed because they do not reflect ingredients. The Court stated that there is no description of what the offence is except for saying that the order stated to direct the registration of FIR. The Court stressed that only the Court’s directives dictated in Para 11 are mentioned in the FIR does not rest of the part.
This Court asserted that the Court has examined para 12 of the FIR which must necessarily lay down ingredients of the offence connecting it to acts of offender and noted that the FIR is brief and that there is not a single mention of actions of the accused which would satisfy the ingredients of offences registered against him. The Court emphasised that the operative portion of the FIR is nothing, but a reproduction of Court’s order dated 14-05-2025.
The Court stated that the FIR does not have whisper of actions of accused and how they constitute the offence. The Court stated that it is well settled law on quashing of FIRs that a FIR can be quashed where contents, descriptions of actions of suspect, has not been reproduced. The Court stated that this FIR has been registered in such a manner that it leaves sufficient space that if it is challenged under Section 482 of the CrPC because it is deficient in material particulars of the action of the accused, it will be quashed.
The Court directed that the entire order dated 14-05-2025 shall be read as part of para 12 of the FIR for all judicial, quasi-judicial and investigating purposes. In the nature of the case and the manner in which the FIR is registered, the Court stated that it does not inspire the confident of this Court, therefore, the Court is “compelled to ensure that it monitors the investigation without interfering with independence of the investigating agency but only to the extent of monitoring that it acts fairly in accordance with law without being influenced by any extraneous pressures or directions.” The Court further directed to list the present matter immediately after vacation.
[Court on its Own Motion v. State of M.P., WP-17913-2025, Decided on 15-05-2025]
