Prior sanction is essential for prosecuting offences under Section 295A IPC, and mere insults without malicious intent do not meet the threshold for criminal liability.

& MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 05.07.2024.

PRONOUNCED ON : 24.07.2024 JUDGMENT : (PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J )

1. Heard Mr. S.P. Sonwane, learned Advocate for the applicants, the learned APP for the State and Mr. R.S. Akbani, learned Advocate for the non-applicant No.2.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Advocates for the parties.

3. Both the applications have been filed under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing the FIR and the charge-sheet filed against the present applicants on the basis of the FIR lodged by the non-

applicant No.2 with Police Station, Narkhed.

4. After taking us through the contents of the FIR and the charge-sheet, the learned Advocate for the applicants submits that as per the informant/non-applicant No2 the alleged insult is stated to be to outrage religious feelings of a class and it is through WhatsApp group. As per the FIR, there was WhatsApp group, named as “Narkhed Ghadamodi”. The non-applicant No.2 was added as a member to the said group a day prior to lodging FIR dated 03.08.2017. He finds that both the applicants were asking certain questions in respect of the Muslim Community which he found to be outrageous. However, the entire contents of the FIR as well as the charge-sheet would show that he was intentionally made a member by somebody so that he can instigate the situation. The conversations/contents recorded in the FIR as well as in the statements of the witnesses, would show that some questions were asked in respect of the Prophet Mohammad and then it is stated that the applicants got annoyed by knowing that certain members of the group were not ready to say ‘Vande Matram’ and then the applicants reacted that if the persons who cannot say ‘Vande Matram’, then they should leave the country and go to Pakisthan. Thereafter, the incident dated 03.08.2017 had taken place in the Hospital of one of the applicant-Dr. Subhash, which shows that the informant was the aggressor. Those chats cannot be considered as deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class. Lodging of the FIR and the entire proceedings based upon the same itself are with a malicious or mala fide intention. Both the applicants are reputed persons, who love their country and therefore, it would be unjust to ask them to face the trial.

5. Per contra, the learned APP as well as the learned Advocate for the non-applicant No.2, strongly oppose the applications and submitted that not only the conversation that has been reflected in the FIR and the statements of the witnesses, but also the conversations which have been seen from the WhatsApp chats, would show that with some grudge against the Muslim Community both the applicants were asking unnecessary questions and it appears that they wanted to show as to how the Hindus are on upper footing or better than the Muslims and how their religion is great. Only some chats need not be considered to come to the conclusion whether the ingredients of Section 295A of the IPC are attracted or not. The mobiles phones have been seized and the chats have been submitted. When the charge-sheet is filed, let the applicants face the trial.

6. As it can be seen that the charge-sheet that has been been filed against both the applicants, is for the offences punishable under Section 295A, 504 and 506 of the IPC and therefore, the basic fact that ought to have been shown on behalf of the prosecution is that the sanction, as required under Section 196(1) of the CrPC, has been obtained. The reply has been filed on behalf of the Investigating Officer and in the said reply also there are no averments as to when the proposal was sent either to the Central Government or to the State Government for sanction to prosecute the applicants. We would like to reproduce the relevant part of the Section 196(1) of the CrPC, which reads thus:

“196. Prosecution for offences against the State and for criminal conspiracy to commit such offenc