Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
K.K. SONAWANE, J.
PAWAN KAMALAKAR DESHPANDE - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - Respondent
Criminal Application No. 6323 of 2017
Decided on : 02-05-2019
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 295, 153, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 190, 196 482 – Maintainability of the proceeding – Applicants, taking recourse of remedy under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure preferred the present criminal application and agitated the propriety and maintainability of the proceeding of private complaint filed by respondent No. 2-original complainant against applicants - accused for the charges under Sections 295-A, 153-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code – Held, It is hard to believe that the alleged news article published was the fallout of any ill-intention or malafide on the part of applicants-accused to create hatred or insult the religious feelings of Muslim community. At this juncture, the object and purpose of publication of such kind of article described on behalf of applicants appears convincing and plausible one. – It is discernible from the news article that the applicants-accused was intending to make acquainted the public at large about the illegal activities of the terrorist organization known as, "ISIS" and its sources of funding. – The diagram of "Piggy Bank" shown in the article was the symbolic image to point out the mode and manner in which "ISIS" used to collect the funds for its illegal activities. – In such peculiar circumstances, it is unsafe to draw adverse inference that the act of publishing alleged news articles with graphic of "Piggy Bank" having sketch of animal pig (swine) with the words "Allah Rasool Muhammad", would come within the mischief of Section 295-A or Section 153-A of IPC. – It is preposterous and incomprehensible to conclude that the alleged article would be an deliberate act to cause insult or outrage the religious feelings and emotions of Muslim community. – There is no impediment to hold that the learned Magistrate committed error in exercising the discretion to take cognizance of the offence levelled against the applicants-accused in absence of previous sanction from the Government authority. – In view of legal provision under Section 196(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., there was legal infirmity and lacuna in the proceedings filed on behalf of respondent No.2-complainant. – The act of taking cognizance by the Magistrate itself could be held as an abuse of process of law. – The absence of previous sanction from Government authority caused serious dent in the penal proceedings initiated by the respondent No.2-complainant. Moreover, as discussed above, the act of publishing the impugned article cannot be considered as an deliberate and malafide on the part of applicants-accused to cause insult or hurt to the religious feelings and emotions of Muslim community. – In such circumstances, the interference by exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is apt and essential to meet the ends of justice. – Therefore, the present application deserves to be allowed. – Criminal Application Allowed
K.K. SONAWANE, J.
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The present criminal application is taken up for final hearing on merit with the consent of both sides.
2. The applicants, taking recourse of remedy under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C."), preferred the present criminal application and agitated the propriety and maintainability of the proceeding of private complaint bearing RCC No. 209 of 2016 (old Misc. Criminal Application No. 631 of 2015) filed by respondent No. 2-original complainant against applicants - accused for the charges under Sections 295-A, 153-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC").
3. The applicants are the office personnels attached to the office of Lokmat Media Private Limited. Applicant No. 2 was the Graphic Designer, whereas applicant No. 3 and applicant No. 1 were the Editor and reporter of the newspaper "Dainik Lokmat" published from Aurangabad City. Applicant No. 4 was the Chairman of Lokmat Media Private Ltd. It has been alleged that in the supplement "Manthan" of news paper "Dainik Lokmat" dated 29-11-2015, there was an article published on the topic of rise in the terrorist activities of outfit known as Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (for short "ISIS") and its financial sources. There were endeavour to highlight illegal activities of terrorist organization ISIS and its source of funding to promote their destructive activities. There was a graphic showing image "Piggy Bank" also known as "Penny Bank" sketched with the aforesaid article published in the news paper "Dainik Lokmat" on 29-11-2015. According to applicants, the intention to display the graphic was to point out various modes and avenues for procuring funds by outfit known as "ISIS" for its terrorist activities in the world. The image of the "Piggy Bank" in the graphic was one of the attempt to describe the mode and manner to collect money from various sources by the terrorist organization to promote its destructive activities. There was no intention to insult the religious feelings of particular community or to promote inimical terms in between different religious groups on account of religion etc.
4. However, the respondent No. 2 Mr. Amjad Khan Rahim Khan Pathan, resident of Sadar Bazar area, Ambajogai District Beed appears aggrieved by the graphic sketched with the alleged article. According to him, in the graphic there was image of animal "pig" shown under guise of "Piggy Bank" and words "Allah Rasool Muhammad" were scribed on the image of animal pig (swine). According to respondent No. 2, animal - Pig (Swine) is not considered as sacred animal in the Islam. Therefore, the words "Allah Rasool Muhammad" scribed on the graphic diagram of animal Pig (swine) would cause hurt and outrage the religious feelings of the Muslim community. Therefore, respondent No. 2- Mr. Amjatkhan approached to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambajogai, District Beed and filed the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to direct the concerned Police to registered and investigate the allegation nurtured under Sections 295-A and 153-A read with section 34 of the IPC against applicants /accused.
5. The learned Magistrate considered the allegations nurtured on behalf of respondent-complainant and instead of order under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to direct Police investigation, preferred to treat the present application as complaint under section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C. Pursuant to directions, the complaint appeared before the learned Magistrate for further process. His statement on oath was recorded under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate took the cognizance of the offence and after verification of factual aspect under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. proceed to issue process against applicant-accused for the offence under Section 295-A and 153-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. Being dissatisfied with the mode and manner adopted by the le
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
