Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Pune Man Who Filmed Traffic Police Constable’s Alleged Bribe Demand on Facebook Live

Pune, 3rd December 2024: The Supreme Court has quashed an FIR filed by a Pune traffic constable against Vijay Sagar, who had accused her of demanding a ₹1,000 cash fine. The case, filed under Sections 500 and 509 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 67 of the IT Act, was dismissed on November 27, 2024.

The Supreme Court emphasized that individuals posting lawful content on social media cannot be held liable for vulgar or defamatory comments made by random users. This ruling provides significant clarity regarding the liability of social media users for third-party comments.

In November 2022, Sagar’s two-wheeler was towed from J.M. Road, Pune, and taken to the traffic department at Shivajinagar. After paying an online fine of ₹785, he alleged that a lady traffic constable demanded an additional ₹1,000 in cash for a municipal corporation fine. Suspecting corruption, Sagar began a Facebook Live video to document his ordeal.

The video went viral, and random users posted vulgar and defamatory comments about the constable. Although Sagar removed the video upon learning about the comments, the constable filed an FIR two days later, accusing him of defamation and misuse of social media.

The apex court ruled that holding individuals accountable for third-party comments on their posts is a violation of their freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court also criticized the police’s actions, terming the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings an “abuse of process of law.”

The bench clarified, however, that complainants can file separate cases against individuals who post offensive comments.

After securing anticipatory bail from the Pune Sessions Court, Sagar sought to quash the FIR through the Bombay High Court. The High Court dismissed his plea, citing the filing of the chargesheet. Sagar then approached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition.

Advocate Satya Muley, representing Sagar, argued that the police action stemmed from a “revengeful attitude” and lacked legal basis. He pointed out that the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act does not authorize the police to collect cash fines for municipal violations.

Advocate Muley remarked, “The police had no statutory authority to demand ₹1,000 in cash. It is evident that such fines are collected illegally. Citizens must not succumb to such demands.”

He further added, “Sagar was not responsible for the comments made by unknown individuals on his Facebook post. There was no criminal intent or conspiracy on his part.”