Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY BENCH AT BENCH
Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi, JJ.
Pramod And Others - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Maharashtra And Others - Respondent
Criminal Application (APL) No.1077 of 2023 with Criminal Application (APL) No.583 of 2023
Decided On : 24-07-2024
QUASHING - FIR and Charge-Sheet - Section 482 of CrPC, Section 295A, Section 504, Section 506 of IPC, Section 196(1) of CrPC - The court discussed the necessity of prior sanction under Section 196(1) of the CrPC for cognizance of offences under Section 295A of the IPC, emphasizing that the prosecution must prove deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings. The court found that the FIR lacked sufficient evidence to support the charges, indicating that the proceedings were initiated with mala fide intentions, leading to the quashing of the FIR and charge-sheet.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants filed applications under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash an FIR and charge-sheet alleging that they insulted religious feelings through a WhatsApp group. The informant claimed that the applicants made derogatory remarks about the Muslim community, which led to the FIR being lodged.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the FIR and charge-sheet did not establish the necessary elements of the offences under Section 295A, 504, and 506 of the IPC. It noted that the informant was added to the WhatsApp group shortly before the incident and that the evidence presented did not demonstrate a deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings.
Issues: Whether the FIR and charge-sheet against the applicants were maintainable in the absence of prior sanction as required under Section 196(1) of the CrPC, and whether the actions of the applicants constituted offences under Section 295A, 504, and 506 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that prior sanction is mandatory for taking cognizance of offences under Section 295A of the IPC, and that mere insults or attempts to insult religious feelings without deliberate and malicious intent do not meet the threshold for prosecution under this section. The court emphasized the need for a thorough investigation and the importance of context in determining the nature of the alleged insults.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR and charge-sheet against the applicants, concluding that the prosecution had not established a prima facie case and that the proceedings were initiated with mala fide intentions.
JUDGMENT :
Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.
Heard Mr. S.P. Sonwane, learned Advocate for the applicants, the learned APP for the State and Mr. R.S. Akbani, learned Advocate for the non-applicant No.2.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Advocates for the parties.
3. Both the applications have been filed under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing the FIR and the charge-sheet filed against the present applicants on the basis of the FIR lodged by the non-applicant No.2 with Police Station, Narkhed.
4. After taking us through the contents of the FIR and the charge-sheet, the learned Advocate for the applicants submits that as per the informant/non-applicant No2 the alleged insult is stated to be to outrage religious feelings of a class and it is through WhatsApp group. As per the FIR, there was WhatsApp group, named as "Narkhed Ghadamodi". The non-applicant No.2 was added as a member to the said group a day prior to lodging FIR dated 03.08.2017. He finds that both the applicants were asking certain questions in respect of the Muslim Community which he found to be outrageous. However, the entire contents of the FIR as well as the charge-sheet would show that he was intentionally made a member by somebody so that he can instigate the situation. The conversations/contents recorded in the FIR as well as in the statements of the witnesses, would show that some questions were asked in respect of the Prophet Mohammad and then it is stated that the applicants got annoyed by knowing that certain members of the group were not ready to say 'Vande Matram' and then the applicants reacted that if the persons who cannot say 'Vande Matram', then they should leave the country and go to Pakisthan. Thereafter, the incident dated 03.08.2017 had taken place in the Hospital of one of the applicant-Dr. Subhash, which shows that the informant was the aggressor. Those chats cannot be considered as deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class. Lodging of the FIR and the entire proceedings based upon the same itself are with a malicious or mala fide intention. Both the applicants are reputed persons, who love their country and therefore, it would be unjust to ask them to face the trial.
5. Per contra, the learned APP as well as the learned Advocate for the non-applicant No.2, strongly oppose the applications and submitted that not only the conversation that has been reflected in the FIR and the statements of the witnesses, but also the conversations which have been seen from the WhatsApp chats, would show that with some grudge against the Muslim Community both the applicants were asking unnecessary questions and it appears that they wanted to show as to how the Hindus are on upper footing or better than the Muslims and how their religion is great. Only some chats need not be considered to come to the conclusion whether the ingredients of Section 295A of the IPC are attracted or not. The mobiles phones have been seized and the chats have been submitted. When the charge-sheet is filed, let the applicants face the trial.
6. As it can be seen that the charge-sheet that has been filed against both the applicants, is for the offences punishable under Section 295A, 504 and 506 of the IPC and therefore, the basic fact that ought to have been shown on behalf of the prosecution is that the sanction, as required under Section 196(1) of the CrPC, has been obtained. The reply has been filed on behalf of the Investigating Officer and in the said reply also there are no averments as to when the proposal was sent either to the Central Government or to the State Government for sanction to prosecute the applicants. We would like to reproduce the relevant part of the Section 196(1) of the CrPC, which reads thus:
(1) No Court shall take cognizance of -
(a) any offence punishable under Chapter VI or under sect
No prior sanction is required for the police to register an FIR for offences under Section 295A IPC; such sanction is only necessary when a court takes cognizance after the investigation is complete.
To establish an offence under Section 295-A IPC, there must be deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings; mere careless or unwitting acts do not suffice.
FIR quashed - Through Facebook ID, posted objectionable material - Religious sentiments - Petitioner has shared post of other person, even, contents of FIR does not, prima facie, establish alleged of....
The court held that deliberate intention is required to constitute an offense under Section 299 BNS, emphasizing that reckless acts, particularly by public figures, attract legal scrutiny in relation....
Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings, as per Section 299 BNS, necessitate intentional insult to religion, confirming the applicability of cognizable offences in public....
The judgment established that intention is crucial for offences under IPC Sections 295-A and 153-A, and emphasized the need for proper legal procedures in taking cognizance of such offences.
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
