The petitioner, who is the Chairman and founder President of Infosys, is before this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for quashing the proceedings in P.C.R. No. 7710/2007 (C.C. No. 12359 of 2007) on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, for the offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the National Honour Act').

2. The petitioner is represented by Sri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri K. Shashikiran Shetty. The respondent is represented by Sri C.H. Hanumantharaya, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri M.K Vijayakumar.

3. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the petition may be stated as under:

On 3-5-2007 the respondent-Karnataka Rakshana Vakeelara Vedike (hereinafter referred to as 'the Forum') lodged a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. against the petitioner alleging that on 8-4-2007 in the inaugural function of the Infosys Global Training Center at Mysore, attended by the former President of India, Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Khalam, as the Chief Guest, National Anthem was not sung by mouth. When the Press Reporters questioned the petitioner as to non-singing of the National Anthem, for which the petitioner replied:

"We had formed a five members team to sing Indian National Anthem, but as foreign dignitaries were present on the dias, with a view to avoid any delicacy or uncomfortableness to them, we have cancelled the same".

It is alleged that the above said statement of the petitioner is amounting to disrespect to the National Anthem and therefore committed an offence under Section 3 of the National Honour Act.

The learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore, after recording sworn statement of the complainant has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 3 of the National Honour Act and issued process to the accused. This is impugned in this petition.

4. Sri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel, contended as under that:

(i) the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore, had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence alleged to be have been committed at Mysore;

(ii) Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, does not deal with insult to National Anthem and therefore Section 3 of the National Honour Act addressing insult to National An them is not correct;

(iii) petitioner has not prevented anyone from singing the National Anthem;

(iv) there is no provision of law, which obliges anyone to sing the National Anthem, relied on Bijoe Emmanuel v State of Kerala (paras 10 and 11);

(v) inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. could be exercised either to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, relied on State of Haryana and Others v Bhajan Lal and Others (para 102) and M/s. Pepsi Foods Limited and Another v Special Judicial Magistrate and Others3 (para 22);

(vi) the allegations in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged, the High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., relied on R.P. Kapur v State of Punjab (para 6);

(vii) criminal complaint must disclose the facts which constitute the offence alleged, relied on Bhimappa Bassappa Bhu Sannavar v Laxman Shivarayappa Samagouda (para 11); Vijaya Rao v State of Rajasthan (para 15) and Shatrughna Prasad Sinha v Rajbhau Surajmal Rathi (paras 8 and 12);

(viii) document of sterling and unimpeachable character can be relied upon by the High Court while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. and under Article 226 of the Constitution, relied on State of Orissa v Debendra Nath Padhi (para 29);

(ix) the petitioner apologised for his remarks saying "if the media statement has hurt anybody's sentiments, I deeply apolise" and such statement cannot be taken