Allahabad High Court on Wednesday quashed an FIR registered against The Wire editor Siddharth Varadarajan and another journalist over a news report on a man who had died last year during the farmers’ protest.

A report in the news portal — and Varadarajan’s tweets — had provided the version of the family of Rampur farmer Navreet Singh Dibdiba, who had died during a tractor rally held by the protesters in Delhi on January 26, 2021.

Dibdiba’s family had alleged that he had died of a bullet injury. But the police made it clear that the death was caused by injuries suffered when the tractor the farmer was riding overturned. The police also cited the autopsy report.

In their order quashing the Rampur police’s FIR, Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Rajnish Kumar noted that The Wire had carried the police version too.

The FIR was lodged on January 31 last year under penal sections 153B (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration) and 505(2), which relates to statements creating or promoting enmity between classes.

Allahabad High Court observed that nothing had been brought before it to indicate that the news report created any riot or disturbance.

The Wire report was headlined “Autopsy doctor told me he’d seen the bullet injury but can do nothing as his hands are tied”. Later, the portal reported the denial of this version by the police.

“Perusal of the publication made by the petitioners indicate that it mentions the fact of incident, thereafter the statement of the family members regarding incident and alleged information given by the doctors to him, denial of the UP police and the fact as to what happened that day,” the high court order said.

“This publication was made on January 30, 2021, at 10.08am and on the very same day a clarification of the three doctors was issued by Rampur police at 04.39pm; immediately thereafter at 04.46pm, the same was also published by the petitioners.”

The order said the news report “does not disclose that any opinion was expressed by the petitioners”. Therefore, “this court does not find any opinion or assertion on the part of the petitioners which may have the effect of provoking or inciting the people”.