Jack Dorsey vs State Of Rajasthan on 7 April, 2020 The complaint aforesaid was forwarded to the Police Station Basni, District Jodhpur under Section 156 (3) CrPC, where, the impugned FIR No.458/2018 came to be registered against the present petitioners and few unknown persons. The petitioners herein have approached this court through these miscellaneous petitions under Sections 482 CrPC seeking quashment of the FIR. Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari, Mr. Sandeep Kapur and Mr. (4 of 7) [CRLMP-2818/2019] Ravi Sharma, representing the petitioner Mr. Jack Dorsey in S.B. Crl. M.P. No.4433/2018 and Mr. Nishant Bora, Advocate, representing the petitioner Ms. Anna M.M. Vetticad in S.B. Crl. M.P. No.2818/2019, vehemently and fervently urged that a bare perusal of the impugned FIR would indicate that it does not disclose necessary ingredients of any offence what to say of a cognizable one and thus, the same deserves to be quashed. They further contended that as a matter of fact, the petitioners did not act in a manner aimed at hurting the sentiments of the Brahmin society. They contended that a social event was organized in which the petitioners were present. An unknown lady came and handed over the allegedly offending placard to the petitioner Mr. Jack Dorsey. The moment was captured in the questioned photograph and was casually posted by the petitioner Ms. Anna M.M. Vetticad on her Twitter account without having any intention to hurt the sentiments, religious or otherwise, of any section of the society. They further contended that cognizance of an offence under Section 295-A cannot be taken except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or the State Government concerned and thus, registration of FIR against the petitioner for the said offence is not permissible as no sanction was taken before entertaining the complaint. They further urged that a bare reading of the complaint would reveal that the only grievance of the complainant is regarding uploading of the photograph, in which the placard with inscription "Smash Brahminical Patriarchy" is visible. They contended that merely by the so called publication of these words, it cannot be accepted that religious sentiments of any citizen of this country were hurt. They buttressed that the concept of "Brahmnical Patriarchy" is intended "to enforce (5 of 7) [CRLMP-2818/2019] effective sexual control over women to maintain not only patrilineal succession, but also caste purity, the institution unique to Hindu society". They urged that whether or not the said theory is relevant in the present context is a matter of sociological discussion and it cannot be linked even remotely with religious sentiments and thus, merely by posting these words intended to challenge the said concept, the petitioners cannot be held responsible for committing the offences attributed to them in the impugned FIR. Mr. Nishant Bora, learned counsel representing the petitioner Ms. Anna M.M. Vetticad, who posted the disputed photograph on her Twitter account submitted that the petitioner never intended to offend anyone and is ready to tweet an apology so as to placate the hurt sentiments, if so, of the complainant or any other person of Brahmin community. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners sought acceptance of these miscellaneous petitions and quashment of the impugned FIR. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. H.M. Saraswat, learned counsel representing the complainant, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions of the petitioners' counsel. They urged that by uploading the picture of the offending placard containing the words "Smash Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/150716343/ 3