IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
VIBHA KANKANWADI, S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.
Dnyaneshwar Rohidas Wakale - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Application No.2375 of 2019
Decided on : 19-09-2024
Quashing - Criminal Proceedings - IPC Sections 295-A, 153-A; Atrocities Act Section 3(v) - The court interpreted the necessity of intention in offences under IPC and the Atrocities Act, emphasizing the lack of evidence for malicious intent and improper cognizance procedures, leading to the quashing of proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was accused of posting an objectionable image related to a respected personality on a WhatsApp group, leading to a First Information Report under various sections of the IPC and the Atrocities Act. The applicant claimed no intention to offend and sought to quash the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found insufficient evidence to establish the applicant's intention to outrage religious feelings or promote enmity. It criticized the investigation's quality and the improper cognizance taken by the lower court without necessary sanctions.
Issues: Whether the applicant had the requisite intention to commit the offences under the IPC and the Atrocities Act, and whether the cognizance taken was valid under the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without clear evidence of malicious intent, the charges under the IPC and the Atrocities Act could not stand. It also emphasized the need for proper sanction as per Section 196 of the CrPC before taking cognizance.
Result: The court quashed the criminal proceedings against the applicant.
ORDER :
(PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)
1. Present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing criminal proceedings in Sessions Case No.121/2019 pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad arising out of offence vide Crime No.223/2018 dated 14.08.2018 registered with Khultabad Police Station, Dist. Aurangabad, for the offence punishable under Sections 295-A, 153-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 3(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as “Atrocities Act”).
2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. R.V. Gore for applicant, learned APP Mr. V.K. Kotecha for respondent No.1 and learned Advocate Mr. P.B. Vikhe Patil for respondent No.2.
3. It has been vehemently submitted by learned Advocate for applicant that perusal of First Information Report would show that one Rajesh Baburao Waghmare had posted a post in respect of Bharatratna late Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar on the informant’s mobile around 20.51 hours on 09.08.2018. Since it was objectionable post, informant felt insulted and gave a call to said Rajesh Waghmre and asked him who has posted the said post. Rajesh Waghmare told him that the said post was posted by one Chitte on WhatsApp of one Raju Patole and Chitte had also posted the said post on the WhatsApp of Rajesh Waghmare. Therefore, the informant and persons from his community made inquiry about the said post and came to know that the applicant had posted it on the WhatsApp group by name “Only Bhau” of Padali from his mobile. Therefore, the First Information Report has been lodged. In fact, police have not investigated as to whether the said post was created by the applicant. In fact, when he came to know about the objectionable post wrongly forwarded by him, he had tendered apology immediately on the group itself. The origin of the post has not been traced out by the police and, therefore, the applicant cannot be held responsible for the same, when even as per the First Information Report, the other persons had also forwarded the said post on the mobile of other persons. There was no intention on the part of applicant to hurt feelings of any community. The ingredients of offence under Section 153-A, 295-A of the Indian Penal Code and 3(v) of the Atrocities Act are not at all attracted. In fact, when the First Information Report came to be lodged initially, it was only under the Indian Penal Code Sections. It would be unjust to ask the applicant to face the trial.
4. Per contra, learned APP as well as learned Advocate appointed to represent the cause of respondent No.2 strongly opposed the application and submitted that if we consider the post that was posted, then certainly there was intention to defame one of the respected personalities, who was amongst the committee who framed our Indian Constitution. The objectionable part in the same as it was appearing is a photo, in which a person was seen urinating on the photograph of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. Certainly, such act was not only objectionable but it was with an intention to cause prejudice to the harmony in the society and the religious feeling of the entire community from which the informant and the witnesses were belonging and, therefore, this cannot be considered as a fit case where the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised.
5. The facts those are revealed in First Information Report would show that informant was not the first person who had seen the said post. In fact, he had seen the post which was then forwarded to him by witness Rajesh Waghmare. The link is that even Rajesh Waghmare had received the said post from Chitte. Chitte had also forwarded the said post to Raju Patole and then it is said that when inquiry was made, it was found that it was posted in one group on WhatsApp which was by name “Only Bhau” from village Padali, Tq. Kh
Bilal Ahmed Kaloo vs. State of A.P. [1997 (7) SCC 431]
Mahendra Singh Dhoni vs. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar and another [AIR 2017 SC 2392]
Priya Prakash Varrier vs. State of Telangana [2019 (12) SCC 432]
State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others [AIR 1992 SC 604]
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.
The court quashed the FIR and proceedings under the Atrocities Act, finding no prima facie case against the applicant and emphasizing the need to prevent abuse of legal processes.
Prosecution under Section 153A of the IPC requires specific allegations of individual involvement and prior government sanction; failure to establish these voids proceedings.
Point of law: The extreme that the High Court thought that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, it could quash a First Information Report. The police had not even com....
Point of law: Court in several cases, newspaper reports doesn’t constitute evidence. A petition based on unconfirmed news reports, without verifying their authenticity should not normally be entertai....
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 established that mere allegations of caste-based insults are insufficient to invoke the SC/ST Act unless there is clear evidence of intent to humiliate based on caste and that the incident ....
The court emphasized the need to protect freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and determined the FIR lacked basis for criminal charges under Sections 353(2) and 505(2).
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.