JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Amar Singh Chauhan, J.

Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Imran Ullah and Sri N.I. Jafri, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Raj Bahadur, learned AGA for the State and Sri Shahid Ali Siddiqui, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. Applicant, Dr. Zakir abdul Karim Naik, through this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Court with a prayer to quash the order dated 07.04.2011 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge IV, Jhansi in Criminal Revision No. 194 of 2010 and the order dated 30.4.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-X, Jhansi summoning the applicant under sections 109, 115, 116, 121, 298, 502, 511 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Jhansi and further prayed to stay the aforesaid proceeding.

3. Brief facts which are requisite to be stated for adjudication of this application are that the opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint on 9.1.2018 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate X, Jhansi with the allegation that in the television programme which was telecasted in Peace TV on 21.1.2006, the applicant had participated in a religious dialogue with Sri Sri Ravi Shanker, the founder of Art of Living foundation, which was held at Bangalore, wherein the applicant had hurt the religious sentiments of a particular community. It is also alleged that applicant had published and distributed a pamphlet just to incite hatred and ill-will amongst different communities. It is relevant to reproduce the extract of what has been quoted in Para No. 7 of the complaint as follows:-

"Every Muslim should be a terrorist. A terrorist is a person who causes terror. The moment a robber sees a policeman he is terrified. A policeman is a terrorist for the robber. Similarly every Muslim should be terrorist for the anti-social elements of society, such as thieves, dacoits and rapist. Whenever such an anti-social element sees a Muslim, he should be terrified. It is true that the word Terrorist is generally used for a person who causes terror amongst the common people. But a true Muslim should only be a terrorist to selective people i.e. anti-social elements, and not to the common innocent people. In fact, a Muslim should be a source of peace for innocent."

4. It is further alleged that the pamphlet which was allegedly authored by the applicant, showed that it contains a recital to the effect that Muslim should be a Terrorist. Terrorist has been defined to be a person, who causes terror and illustration of policeman has been given, who is a terrorist for a robber and thus, it has been mentioned that similarly every Muslim should be a Terrorist to selective people like anti-social elements of the society such as thieves, dacoits, rapist etc. and every anti social element should be terrorized on seeing a Muslim and thus, in fact, a Muslim should be a source of peace for innocent people. It is also alleged that the person, who does not follow Hadis and does not accept the truth of Islam is Kafir and anti-social element and only those persons, who follow Sunna and Hadis are innocent.

5. The statement of opposite party no. 2 was recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C on 21.1.2008 and of witnesses under section 202 Cr.P.C. on 25.2.2008. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after examining the contents of complaint as well as other pre-summoning evidence was of the view that no prima facie offence is made out and as such complaint is rejected under section 203 Cr.P.C. The opposite party filed a revision which was allowed and order dated 12.5.2008 was set aside and the matter was remanded back for afresh decision. Learned Magistrate, Court No. 10, Jhansi on being satisfied issued the process under sections 109, 115, 116, 121, 153A, 153B, 298, 502, 505, 511 IPC which was challenged by the applicant by way of Criminal Revision numbered as 194 of 2010. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. IV, Jhansi partly allowed the revision of the applicant and s