IMPORTANT POINT
Public servants performing official duties are protected from criminal charges of trespass or religious insult unless clear misconduct is evident.

ORDER :

The petitioner – Chairperson of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights is knocking at the doors of this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.316/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 34, 447, 448 and 295A of the IPC.

2. Heard Sri Vatsal Joshi, learned counsel along with Sri Vinayaka S. Pandit, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri Muzaffar Ahmed, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Sans details, facts in brief, are as follows:

The issue in the lis would commence on 13.11.2023, when an official tour programme of the petitioner is notified. He was in the official tour in the capacity of being a Chairperson of the statutory body – the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights as also the Chairperson of the monitoring authority under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short ‘the Act’). The official tour also depicted a visit to Bangalore between 17.11.2023 and 19.11.2023. Therefore, the petitioner was performing the official duty in Bangalore on 19.11.2023. It is the averment in the petition that the petitioner is made known that 33 institutions were keeping children and essentially functioning as a children home and the Women and Child Department was not aware as to whether the same was registered under the Act.

4. The petitioner seeks to conduct an inspection of such homes and visits a yateemkhana, which was in the name and style of “Darul Uloom Sayideeya Yateemkhana”. This comes to be inspected on 19.11.2023. During inspection, it is noticed that the said Darul Uloom Sayideeya Yateemkhana, is an unregistered yateemkhana, which was housing 200 children and functioning in violation of law i.e., the provisions of the Act. The petitioner finds various illegalities or irregularities in functioning of the orphanage. After the inspection, a report is made after the inspection and the petitioner communicates the same to the Chief Secretary, the Government of Karnataka and also a letter addressed to the Deputy Commissioner and other Officers for corrective action. While communicating to the Officers, the petitioner observes several illegalities in the running of the orphanage - yateemkhana. All these communications go on, on 20.11.2023. On 21.11.2023, a complaint comes to be registered against the petitioner for the afore-quoted offences. The police begin to conduct investigation. The registration of the crime has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

5. Sri Vatsal Joshi, learned counsel along with Sri Vinayaka S. Pandit, learned counsel for petitioner would vehemently contend that the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 448 of the IPC are, on the face of it unsustainable as in the discharge of the official duty, the petitioner has visited three orphanages, this cannot be a criminal trespass. Insofar as Section 295A of the IPC, the learned counsel would submit that the complaint is wantonly and deliberately wrongly translated for it to become a crime. In the tweet, the petitioner has never said anything that would disturb the peace and harmony in the society. He has appended a copy of the tweet, which is in Hindi and the actual translation of it to the petition to that effect.

6. Per contra, Sri Muzaffar Ahmed, learned counsel for respondent No.2 – complainant would vehemently refute the submission to contend that the petitioner is guilty of the offence under Section 295A of the IPC atleast though Section 447 of the IPC would not be applicable. He would contend that the tweet of the petitioner has got religious overtones and it become ingredients of Section 295A of the IPC. He would submit that the investigation be permitted to continue and seeks dismissal of the petition.

7. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.1 – State would toe the lines of the learned counsel for responde