The main legal point established in the judgment is that for an offence under Section 153A of the IPC to be constituted, the act of the accused must be with the intention to promote feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different religious groups, and a full-dressed trial is required to determine the intention behind the speech.

JUDGMENT

B A Patil, J. - The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR in Crime No.16/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 153A of Indian Penal Code pending on the file of VII J.M.F.C. Court, Mangaluru City, Dakshina Kannada.

2. I have heard the learned counsel Sri.Lethif B. for the petitioner-accused and Sri.V.S.Hegde, SPP-II for the respondents

3. Though the said case has been listed for admission, with consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the same has been taken up for final disposal.

4. The gist of the case is that on 17.02.2020 the Popular Front of India organization held a function in the name of Founding day at Derlakatter Ground, Belma Village, Mangaluru City. On the said day, complainant had been deputed along with other Police Officers on duty. At about 3.45 p.m. the programme was commenced in the presence of Sri.Mohammed Sakib, the State President, P.F.I., K.M.Shariff, National Committee Member, P.F.I., Fiaz Doddamane, C.F.I. State President, Iliyas Tumbe, State President, S.D.P.I., Sri.Ataulla Jokatte, District President, S.D.P.I., A.K.Ashraff, District President, P.F.I., Iqbal Bellare, State Committee Member, P.F.I., Aboobakkar Kulai, Secretary, P.F.I., D.K. District and nearly about 1500 members have attended the said programme.

5. It is further alleged that at about 4.53 p.m. to 5.15 p.m. the member National Committee, P.F.I., by name K.M.Shariff had started delivering his speech and while delivering his speech he had commented the Supreme Court and "Nagapura Management, Supreme Court, Central Government" has giving their agenda to the Court. Further it is alleged that, their Secular Organization had compared with extremist and they are ready to serve the country by dedicating their life. It is also further stated that they decided to do Muslim Free India and they decided to social boycott against the community and blaming their community as terrorism. It is further alleged that they were going to construct Babri Masjid on the same place by social change and protect the independence as if security guards by wearing uniforms and they belong to Allah's Party, Amith Shah and Modi were belong to Demon party and they themselves are going to finish on their own. The speech was delivered by the guest as allegedly insulted the Hindu Religion and provoked the Muslims to revolt against Hindu Religion so as to create enmity between the two religion in the speech. On the basis of the said complaint, a case has been registered in Crime No.16/2020.

6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the police have registered a case under Section 153A of IPC. The ingredients of the said Section are not found in the said case. It is his further submission that the charge sheet material does not disclose the ingredients so as to come to the conclusion that the said statement provoked two religion, there is no another religion which has been stated in the said statement. If there is no allegation as against another religion, the provisions of Section 153A of the IPC is not attracted. It is necessary that at-least two such groups of communities should be involved. Mere insulting the feeling of one community or group without any reference to other community or group cannot constitute an offence. In that light, he relied upon the decision in the case of Bilal Ahmed Kaloo Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) AIR SC 3483 . It is his further submission that there must be an attempt to promote or disharmony or feeling of the community, hatred or ill-will between different religious racial language or regional groups or castes, if it does not having any intention to promote the feelings of enmity, hatred between different classes of people, then the said provision is not applicable. In that light, he relied upon the decision in the case of Manzar Sayeed Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2007) 5 SCC 1 . It is his further submis