Sandeep Sharma: Himachal Pradesh High Court Quashes FIR Against Thakar Singh Bharmouri
“Interestingly, the person, who was allegedly intentionally insulted by the petitioner, thereby being provoked to breach the public peace or commit any other offence, never came forward to lodge a complaint…” These words from Justice Sandeep Sharma encapsulate the essence of a recent ruling by the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which quashed an FIR against Thakar Singh Bharmouri for remarks made about Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The court’s decision, delivered on April 4, 2026, emphasized that vague accusations do not constitute a criminal offense without specific descriptions of the language used. Justice Sharma noted that the essential elements required to invoke Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code were absent in this case.
The FIR in question stemmed from an email complaint filed by a member of the Bharatiya Janta Party following remarks made by Bharmouri during an election rally on October 3, 2021. The court pointed out that there was no evidence to suggest that Bharmouri had intentionally aimed to disrupt public peace or promote enmity among citizens.
Justice Sharma further stated, “No material worth credence has been adduced on record to suggest that petitioner intentionally, with a view to cause public disruption, hurled abuses and made uncalled for remarks against the Hon’ble Prime Minister.” This ruling highlights the court’s commitment to ensuring that the judicial process is not misused as a tool for harassment.
Moreover, the court observed, “…there is no allegation that while using absurd language and hurling abuses at the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, petitioner ever attempted to promote enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens of India on the grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language…”
In its ruling, the court underscored the necessity for specific grounds to be proven to invoke Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, further reinforcing the importance of substantial evidence in legal proceedings.
As a result of the court’s decision, Bharmouri was formally acquitted of the charges after the FIR was quashed, marking a significant moment in this legal saga.
The High Court’s inherent power under Section 528 was invoked to prevent the judicial process from being used as a weapon of harassment in cases where a conviction is highly unlikely.
As the community reflects on this ruling, it serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between free speech and the legal frameworks designed to protect public order. The implications of this decision may resonate in future cases involving political speech and public figures.
