The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement of prior sanction for offences under Section 295A of IPC as mandated by Section 196 of the Code to prevent communal disharmony and abuse of legal process.

JUDGMENT :

The applicant-accused, Jishan Alam, has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.5279 of 2021, “State vs. Jishan Alam”, pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar.

2. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed under Section 295A of IPC. The learned trial court took the cognizance and passed the summoning order under Section 295A of IPC against the present applicant.

3. According to the First Information Report, on 04.11.2020, the present applicant had made a statement with the intention of causing communal violence and disputes between two communities.

4. On 18.05.2022, Mr. Mohd. Safdar, the learned counsel for the applicant, had argued that in view of Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Code”), cognizance of offence punishable under Section 295A of IPC cannot be taken except on the previous sanction of the Central Government or the State Government. After the said submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the State had sought time to get instructions on the point, as to whether, sanction as required under Section 196 of the Code has been taken or not?

5. On 27.06.2022, the learned counsel appearing for the State had submitted that the trial court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 295A of IPC without any sanction order. However, the learned counsel for the State requested two days’ time to file supplementary affidavit regarding sanction.

6. Today, Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, the learned Assistant Government Advocate fairly conceded that in the present matter sanction was not given.

7. Heard Mr. Mohd. Safdar, the learned counsel for the applicant, and, Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, the learned A.G.A. for the State.

8. Mr. Mohd. Safdar, the learned counsel for the applicant-accused has relied upon a judgment of this Court in “Dr. Bharam Singh vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others, 2010 SCC OnLine Utt 2276”. In the said matter, this High Court observed that prior sanction of the State before taking cognizance in the offence under Section 295A of IPC is necessary and without sanction, no cognizance can be taken by the court, irrespective of the case being a State case or a complaint case. The offences mentioned in Section 196 of the Code, for which, a prior sanction has been made necessary, because, these offences relate to public peace, tranquility and communal harmony. These offences are not only of a serious nature but have a fallout on public peace, therefore, a prior sanction of the Government has been made mandatory, as sometimes mere prosecution itself may generate communal disharmony. Offence relating to Section 295A of IPC is of such a nature.

9. Section 295A of IPC reads as under :-

“Section 295A:- Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.- Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

10. In the instant facts, admittedly, there is no sanction as envisaged under Section 196 of the Code.

11. Section 196 of the Code reads as under :-

“Section 196:- Prosecution for offences against the State and for criminal conspiracy to commit such offence:-

(1) No Court shall take cognizance of-

(a) any offence punishable under Chapter VI or under section 153A, Section 295 A or sub section (1) of section 505 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or

(b) a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, or

(c) any such abetment, as is described in Section 108A of t