The FIR lacks necessary ingredients for offences under Section 196(1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, justifying its quashing due to vagueness.

ORDER :

S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.

1. In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:

"I. Quash the Complaint dated 04.11.2024 (Annexure A), First Information Report bearing Crime No.0208/2024 dated 04.11.2024 (Annexure B) registered against the Petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 196 (1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the notice issued under Section 35 (3) of BNSS in Crime No.0208/2024 dated 07.11.2024 (Annexure-C) and all further investigation thereto pending on the file of the Learned Civil Judge & JMFC Court, Savanur, Haveri District, as against the Petitioner.

II, Further this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant such other reliefs as deemed fit in the interest of justice and equity."

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. Respondent No.2 has been served and remained unrepresented.

3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the impugned complaint and FIR in order to point out that necessary ingredients for commission of the offences punishable under Section 196 (1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (old Section 153A of IPC) were conspicuously absent and not forthcoming in the same and the impugned complaint and FIR deserve to be quashed in the light of the following judgments of the Apex Court and this Court:

1. Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra [(2024) 4 SCC 156]

2. Shiv Prasad Semwal v. State of Uttarakhand [(2024) 7 SCC 555]

3. Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P. , [(1997)7 SCC 431] 4. Suresha v. State of Karnataka [Crl.P.No.5694/2024 DD 20.09.2024]

4. Per contra, learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1 submits that the complaint makes out the allegations and the entire speech clearly indicates commission of the offences punishable under Section 196 (1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 , and as such, question of interfering with the same at this stage would not arise in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

5. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be necessary to extract the complaint which is as under:

6. A perusal of the complaint and FIR would clearly indicate that the petitioner is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Section 196 (1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (old Section 153(a) of IPC). Under identical circumstances, in relation to the offences punishable under Section 153-A of IPC, the Apex Court and this Court have held in the following judgments as under:

1. Paragraphs 7 to 10 and 12 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra [(2024)4 SCC 156] read as under:

"7. In Manzar Sayeed Khan, while interpreting Section 153-A, in para 16, this Court held thus: (SCC p. 9)

"16. Section 153-A IPC, as extracted hereinabove, covers a case where a person by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities or acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity. The gist of the offence is the intention to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of people. The intention to cause disorder or incite the people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence under Section 153-A IPC and the prosecution has to prove prima facie the existence of mens rea on the part of the accused. The intention has to be judged primarily by the language of the book and the circumstances in which the book was written a