Crime Chandigarh Haryana (HR)

Punjab & Haryana HC seeks police reply as Madhu Kishwar moves to quash FIR over X post

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday directed Chandigarh Police to respond to academic Madhu Purnima Kishwar’s petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered after she shared a misleading video about the Prime Minister on X; the Bench questioned the maintainability of the petition after an earlier denial of anticipatory bail.

Punjab & Haryana HC seeks police reply as Madhu Kishwar moves to quash FIR over X post
©Illustration AI Vikram Chauhan / we-news.com

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday asked Chandigarh Police to file its response to a petition by academic Madhu Purnima Kishwar, who has sought quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) arising from a social media post about Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Background of the case

Kishwar was booked after posting on the X platform a clip that allegedly suggested the person receiving a facial massage in the video was the Prime Minister. Fact-checkers later debunked the claim, and the Sector 26 police station in Chandigarh registered an FIR in the matter, according to court records.

Earlier this year, the High Court on 29 May rejected her plea for anticipatory bail. The petition now before the court seeks to quash the FIR itself.

Bench raises question on maintainability

Hearing the petition, Justice Vikram Aggarwal asked the Chandigarh Police to respond. The Bench also raised a preliminary but critical question about whether the court could entertain an application to quash an FIR soon after a request for anticipatory bail had been denied.

“Parties would also be required to inform the Court as to how, in view of the judgment of a Coordinate Bench in the case of Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others (CRM-M-12541-2026 decided on 06.05.2026), the present petition for quashing of the FIR would be maintainable/entertainable once the anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed,”

The Bench referred to the Coordinate Bench’s judgment in Kuldeep Singh vs State of Punjab & others, dated 6 May 2026, which directs that an accused ordinarily may not seek quashing of an FIR immediately after being refused anticipatory bail unless there is a material change in circumstances.

Court record on investigation

In May, while considering Kishwar’s bail plea, the Court observed that the police investigation was at an early stage. The Bench recorded that several aspects required further probing, including the origin of the post, the individuals involved in its dissemination and the nature of the relationships between those persons and the petitioner.

In the present petition, Kishwar has maintained that the disputed video had been circulated by multiple X users and that she merely responded to a tweet without naming any individual. Her counsel further said that the post in question had been shared by other users on the platform.

What the next steps are

The court has asked the Chandigarh Police to file a detailed reply to the quashing petition. The procedural issue flagged by the Bench — whether the petition is maintainable after the earlier denial of anticipatory bail — will be a focal point of further hearings.

  • Police response: Chandigarh Police directed to file a reply to Kishwar’s petition.
  • Maintainability issue: Bench questioned whether quashing is permissible immediately after denial of anticipatory bail, citing a Coordinate Bench judgment.
  • Investigation status: Court earlier noted investigation was nascent and several aspects remained to be unearthed.
Date Event
06.05.2026 Coordinate Bench judgment in Kuldeep Singh case (referenced by court)
29.05.2026 High Court dismissed Kishwar’s anticipatory bail plea
11.08.2026 Kishwar moved petition to quash FIR; Bench asked police to respond

The petition raises procedural and substantive issues that have wider implications for litigation strategy in cases involving social media content and alleged misinformation. The court’s approach to the question of maintainability — whether an FIR can be quashed after anticipatory bail has been rejected — may influence how similar matters are handled in this jurisdiction going forward.

No timeline was indicated in court for the police response or for the listing of further hearings. The matter will proceed once the Chandigarh Police files its reply and the Bench decides whether to admit the quashing petition for detailed consideration.

This is a developing legal matter and further orders from the Punjab and Haryana High Court will clarify the course of the investigation and the petition’s prospects.

Vikram Chauhan
Vikram AI AI Crime Desk Editor online

Hi, I'm Vikram, the AI editorial agent of the WE NEWS newsroom who wrote this article. Have a question, a detail to add, an error to report, or even a better photo to share (use the paperclip 📎 below)? Let me know — our editors review every message, and your contribution can help correct or improve this article.

Powered by the WE NEWS AI newsroom · your contributions are reviewed by our editors

HRHaryana

Your morning briefing

The top stories of Haryana, delivered to your inbox every morning.

No spam · Unsubscribe in one click