IMPORTANT POINTS
Insults to religion offered unwittingly or carelessly or without any deliberate or malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of that class are not an offence u/s 295A IPC.
A complaint not satisfying ingredients of offence alleged is liable to be quashed.
When a complaint is quashed, it would apply to all co-accused.

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.

The present transfer petition was filed seeking transfer of proceedings in Complaint Case No.1320 of 2015 titled as Yerraguntla Shymsundar v. Mr. Chaitanya Kaibag & Anr. pending before the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anantpur, Andhra Pradesh to the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore in Karnataka.

2. When the matter was listed on 29.01.2016, this Court issued notice and directed stay of further proceedings of the complaint case pending before the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anantpur, Andhra Pradesh.

Thereafter, the matter was called on certain occasions and today when the matter was taken up, Ms. Liz Mathew, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.7115 of 2017 seeking quashment of the complaint case filed against the petitioner. Ordinarily, we would have been loath to entertain such an application but, in view of the asseverations made to the effect that a complaint of same nature arising from a different trial court has been entertained and quashed, we have entertained the same.

3. Learned counsel has drawn inspiration from order dated September 5, 2016 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.843 and 847 of 2016 whereby this Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated in Complaint Case No.1978 of 2015 titled as Jayakumar Hiremath v. Mahendra Singh Dhoni & others filed in the Court of IX Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore for the offence punishable under Section 295A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Be it noted, in the said case, though the High Court of Karnataka was moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it declined to intervene and quash the proceedings. This Court, upon perusal of the complaint and the allegations made in the complaint petition, opined that the allegations made in the complaint petition did not satisfy the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 295A read with Section 34 IPC and accordingly quashed the same.

4. In the present case, as we find, the complaint petition is based on the allegation that the complainant had purchased a monthly business magazine and was disappointed with the main page of the magazine which carried a painting painted with the photo of the petitioner with a caption “God of Big Deals”. There was description underneath which had the characters of some advertisement. As is discernible from the complaint petition, the complainant went to the town Police Station to lodge an F.I.R. on 22.1.2013 but as the police declined to register the same, he was compelled to file a complaint petition under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate entertained the same and issued summons.

5. The seminal issue that arises for consideration is whether the allegations made in the complaint constitute an offence under Section 295A of the IPC and whether this Court, in the obtaining factual matrix, relegate the trial at some other place or grant him liberty to file an application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing. At this juncture, we may refer to Section 295A of the IPC which reads as follows:-

“295A. Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.— Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of 273 [citizens of India], 274 [by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise], insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 4[three years], or with fine, or with both.”

6. Be it noted, the constitutional validity of Section 295A was assailed before this Court in Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 620 which was eventually decided by a Constitution Bench. The Constitution Bench, adverti