The judgment established that to prove an offence under Section 153A IPC, there must be evidence of promoting enmity between different groups, and mere statements or social media posts may not be sufficient to establish the offence.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.

1. The challenge in this petition is made to the charge-sheet dated 30.06.2019, cognizance/summoning order dated 14.10.2019, passed in Criminal Case No. 16150 of 2019, State vs. Vijay Singh Pal (FIR/Case Crime No. 1053 of 2018), by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar (“the case”) as well as the entire proceedings of the case.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The respondent no. 2, the informant filed FIR No. 1053 of 2018, under Section 153A IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar Haridwar, District Haridwar, against the petitioner. According to the FIR, the petitioner has been demonstrating at a public crossing. He was shouting some religious slogans. The petitioner was also appealing to the public that they would not spare the person, who has demolished the Shiv Temple. He was also cautioning the public that “Hindu Samaj is in Danger.” The FIR records that some posts were uploaded by the petitioner on the social media also. The links have been provided in the FIR. After investigation in the FIR, charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner under Section 153A IPC, on which cognizance was taken on 14.10.2019 under Section 153A IPC. These proceedings are under challenge.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, in fact, with regard to the property of the temple, the petitioner had filed a Public Interest Litigation in this Court; he had also intervened in a litigation with regard to the temple in the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, where his intervention was allowed and he participated. His contentions were considered by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh. It is submitted that the matter further reached to the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would further argue that even if the entire case of the prosecution is accepted in its entirety, prima facie offence under Section 153A IPC is not made out because the allegations, which have been levelled against the petitioner, in no manner promote or attempt to promote on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground, whatsoever, disharmony or feeling of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or caste or communities.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would also submit that both the petitioner and the informant are Hindus. It is not a case of any act between two different groups. It is argued that the provisions of Section 153A IPC has been discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bilal Ahmed Kaloo vs. State of A.P. (1997) 7 SCC 431. In Paragraphs 15 and 16, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the criteria, which squarely applies in the instant case.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the informant would submit that, prima-facie, offence under Section 153A IPC is made out. Learned counsel for the informant has referred to the social media posts to argue that, in fact, the petitioner has been promoting hatred or disharmony between two castes. On the one side, he was reminding the public about Pal Baghel Holkar Dhanaitkar Samaj, and on the other hand, he was referring Pandas Samaj. It is argued that they are distinctly two different communities.

8. According to learned counsel appearing for the informant, the petitioner did make attempts to promote disharmony, ill will between two communities, as is apparent from the social media posts. It is argued that the deeper scrutiny on those aspects may be done during trial. Prima-facie, offence under Section 153A IPC is made out.

9. Learned counsel for the informant has also relied on the principles of law, as laid down in the case of Bilal Ahmed (supra). It is argued that there is no merit in this C-482 application and it deserves to be dismissed.

10. Learned State Counsel would submit that the witnesses have stated that the petitioner was speaking about the dang