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).
The Court closely examined Paragraph 12 of the FIR, which is expected to “lay down the ingredients of the offence by connecting it to the act of the offender.” However, the Court was found that “there is not a single mention of the actions of the suspect, which would satisfy the ingredients of the offences which have been registered against him.”
The Court criticised the State for the manner in which the FIR is registered and stated that “the operative portion of the paragraph 12 is nothing but the reproduction of last part of the order passed by this Court on 14.05.2025 and it does not have a whisper of the earlier part of the order, which lays down in detail, the actions of the suspect and how they constitute an offence…”
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 opined that the FIR was structured in such a way that it lacked the essential “material particulars of the actions which constitute each of the specific offences.” It was evident to the Court that “this is gross subterfuge on the part of the State. The FIR has been drawn in a manner so as to assist the suspect Mr. Vijay Shah to be able to have the FIR quashed on a later date.”
The Court refrained from identifying, at that juncture, who in the State police command was responsible for this attempt but clearly indicated that it would “endeavour to find out the same in future proceedings.”
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., 2025 SCC OnLine MP 3896, Decided on 15-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Shri Prashant Singh, Advocate General with Shri H.S. Ruprah, Additional Advocate General and Shri B.D Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Counsel for the respondent/State.