The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of obtaining sanction from the State government for offences punishable under section 153-A of IPC as per Section 196 of Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

K. Natarajan, J. - This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner accused No. 11 under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings against him in C.C. No. 630/2020 (Crime No. 82/2019 registered by Konaje police) pending on the file of JMFC-VII Court, Mangaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 153-A read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3 of Karnataka Open Space Disfigurement Act of 1951 and 1981.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent State.

3. The case of prosecution is that suo moto complaint was registered by the Konaje police station on 17.11.2019 wherein it was alleged that, on the said date, when the complainant, along with Police Constable No. 941-Ashok Kumar, was on patrolling duty, he received the credible information at about 5.30 p.m., that in front of the house of one Abbas near Badriya Jumma Masjid, some persons belong to People Front of India (PFI) were making slogans against the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in Ayodhya-Babri Masjid dispute case. A group of people said to be belong to Campus Front of India (CFI) and PFI went inside the Mangaluru University campus and uttered slogans against the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in Ayodhya-Babri Masjid case. Among them, one Athaulla, Panjalakatte, Imran R.J., Mohd. Asif, Mohd. Riyaz and the petitioner raised slogan against the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. Thereby, the petitioner involved in intending to outrage the religious feelings by affixing all posters and they disputed in the public place. Therefore, the police registered the case and filed charge sheet against the petitioner and others.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence. There is no direct evidence against him. The complaint was registered based upon the hearsay evidence, which is not admissible. The prosecution examined four witnesses and none of the witnesses have stated the name of the petitioner. There are no eye witnesses against the petitioner. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that nothing is seized from the possession of the petitioner. Petitioner is not the member of any of the aforesaid organizations and he has been falsely implicated in the case. Hence, prays for quashing the criminal proceedings.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader objected the petition and contended that the petitioner is the member of the CFI, which is a student organization, and he has participated in the protest inside the University Campus, Mangaluru. His name was mentioned in the complaint along with other accused. The petitioner is the person residing in the same locality. The petitioner along with others protested against the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in Ayodhya-Babri Masjid case and insulted the religious feelings of some of the religions. The petitioner is residing in the university campus area. The witnesses Francis Vegas, Mayaddi, Mohd. Munjeer, have all stated about the incident. The name of the petitioner is also mentioned by the police constable who was on the patrolling duty on the date of incident. There is material placed on record to show that the petitioner had participated in the organization and he uttered the slogan against the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in Ayodhya-Babri Masjid case and created disharmony or feelings of enmity between the two religions. Therefore, the petitioner is required to face trial and hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.

6. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, perused the records.

7. The case of the prosecution is that the suo moto complaint was registered by the police against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner is a member of the CFI, which is also a part of the PFI. The petitioner along with others agitated against t