The main legal point established in the judgment is that the lack of material to support alleged offences, failure to obtain necessary sanctions for prosecution, and absence of evidence for the alleged offence under Sec. 43 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 influenced the Court's decision to quash the proceedings.

1. The present petition has been filed by petitioners- Accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 under Sec.482 of Cr.P.C, praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.7/2017 pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Aland for the offences punishable under Sections 295-A r/w Sec. 149 of IPC and Sec.66 of Information and Technology Act, 2000.

2. The facts leading to the case are that; the respondents police have filed a complaint alleging that on 4.7.2016 at about 4:30 PM when he was in the police station, one Mois Karbari and Firdosh Ansari along with 500-600 Muslim caste people came to the Police Station alleging that at about 4:00 PM on the same day when they were browsing posts and pictures uploaded on the social media, called as Facebook, they found one group by name 'Hindu Shakti Sangam', which posted the photo with saffron flag on the Aland City Dargha and also posted a photo with foot on the poster of the Dargha. It is further alleged that, some 7-8 persons posted a comment to those photos and by doing so they have hurt the sentiments of Muslim religion and caused social unrest in that locality. It is further alleged that, persons by name, 1) Basawaraj Jeengi, 2) Sangamesh Nipani, 3) Gururaj Deshpande, 4) Janjeet Bhajrangdal, 5) Laxmikanth Swadi, 6) Laxmikanth Busnoor, 7) Laxman Mane, 8) Sooraj Sonar, 9) Aswath Kalekar and some unknown persons by seeing the photo in which the sentiments of the Muslim community is alleged to have commented by saying "Hamara Sapna Ayodha me Ram Ji Ka mandir aur Aland ke Dargha mai Rahanewala Shiva ji ka Banayenge Mandir" and when the complainant checked out on the Facebook, he found it to be true. On the basis of the same, a case has been registered against eight persons and after investigation charge sheet has been filed.

3. After filing of the charge sheet, the learned Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Aland by order dated 20.1.2017 took the cognizance and has issued the summons.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

5. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. There are no material to constitute the offence alleged against the petitioners. He has further contended that the concerned police have not obtained the sanction as contemplated under Sec. 196 of Cr.P.C for the purpose of prosecuting the accused persons under Sec. 295-A of IPC. He further contended that even though Sec. 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 has been included in the charge sheet, but no ingredients are forthcoming in the complaint or other material. As such, he prayed for quashing the proceedings.

6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State vehemently argued and contended that there is a material to show that the accused persons have committed the alleged offences and after investigation the charge sheet came to be filed and on the basis of the material available, the Court below has rightly took the cognizance and has issued the summons. There is no illegality or irregularity and the proceedings are pending since long, the petitioners belatedly approached this Court and without there being any cause. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. I have gone through the copy of the FIR, complaint and other material produced along with the petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the investigation officer in order to take the cognizance under Sec. 295-A of IPC, previous sanction of the Central Government or by the State Government is very much essential as contemplated under Sec. 196 of the Cr.P.C. For the purpose of brevity, I quote Sec. 196 of Cr.P.C, which reads as under;

Sec. 196 of Cr.P.C.

"Prosecution for offences against the State and for criminal conspiracy to commit such offence-(1) No Court shall take cognizance of-

(a) any offence punishable under Chapter