Sandeep Kumar, J. – Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel assisted by Sri Malay Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Siddhartha Prasad, learned counsel for the Election Commission of India and Sri S.K. Jha, learned counsel for the State.

2. This application has been filed for quashing of the F.I.R. vide Hawai Adda P.S. Case No. 91 of 2014 registered for the offences under Sections 171-E, 153-A, 153-B, 295-A, 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 123(3), 123(3A) & 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

3. The present F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner by one Durga Dutta Jha, Special Executive Magistrate, District Control Room, Patna. Although the F.I.R. runs in several pages but the gist of the F.I.R. is quoted hereinbelow: –

^^ujsUnz eksnh ds leFkZd gSa oks èkeZfujis{k ugha gSa] lsD;qyj ugha gSa] eSa dgrk gw¡ fd vkt ujsUnz eksnh ds fojksèk esa tks rkdr vkt fcgkj esa ;k iwjs ns'k esa ,dtqV gks djds ujsUnz eksnh dks gjkus esa yxk gS oks ikfdLrku ijLr gSa mlds fy, fgUnqLrku esa dksbZ txg ugha gSA**

4. It has been submitted by Sri Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner that the correct context and complete statements have not been mentioned in the F.I.R. but the statement quoted in the F.I.R. was the answer to a question put to the petitioner that supporters of Narendra Modi are not secular or Dharmnirpeksha and in its reply, it was stated that forces which have united to protest against and defeat Narendera Modi in Bihar as well as entire country are “Pakistan Parast”, for whom there is no place in India. It has also been submitted that even if the statement of the petitioner is taken as it is then also it is not against any religion, caste, language or against one or other State situated in India and this statement is an answer to a question put to the petitioner.

5. Sri Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that Section 171-E of the Indian Penal Code defines punishment for bribery in election, which is not applicable in the present case because Section 171-E of the Indian Penal Code says whoever commits the offences of bribery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both and bribery is defined under Section 171-B of the Indian Penal Code and the so called statement of the petitioner will not come in any of the criteria as mentioned under Section 171-B of the Indian Penal Code.

6. The next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code deals with promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony but, the statement of the petitioner, in answer to a question, is not against any group either on the ground of religions, race, place of birth, residence, language etc. nor it is in any way prejudiced to maintenance of harmony because it is not directed against any individual community and similarly, the ingredients of Section 153-B of the Indian Penal Code is also not attracted in the present case.

7. It has also been submitted that Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code will not be applicable in this case because it provides that whoever with deliberate or malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizen of India by words either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, inciting or attempt to incite the religion and religious belief of that class but, in the present case the petitioner has not attempted to outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizen of India by words either spoken or written. Similarly, the ingredients of Section 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code is also not attracted in the present case as Section 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code is with regard to making or publishing any statement or rumour or alarming news