Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 28705
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.NAGAPRASANNA J
SRI KEERTHAN KUMAR S/O DHARMAPALA GOWDA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA KADABA POLICE STATION – Respondent
WP 25591 of 2023
The court ruled that allegations of shouting slogans in a mosque do not meet the essential ingredients for offences under the IPC, emphasizing that actions must be deliberate and malicious to constitute an offence under Section 295A.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 447, 295A, 505, 506, 34 - Writ petition to quash FIR for offences punishable under IPC - Allegations of shouting slogans in a mosque do not satisfy essential ingredients of the offences - Court held that mere entry into a public place and shouting slogans does not constitute criminal trespass or outrage religious feelings - Quashing of proceedings justified as no ingredients of offences are present. (Paras 6, 9, 12)
(B) Criminal Law - Ingredients of Offences - The court emphasized that acts must be committed with deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings to be penalized under Section 295A - Acts without such intent do not constitute an offence. (Paras 6, 9)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the FIR registered against them for allegedly entering a mosque and shouting slogans, claiming no ingredients for the alleged offences were present. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the allegations did not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences under the IPC and quashed the complaint proceedings. (Paras 6, 9, 12)
Issues: The main issues included whether the actions of the petitioners constituted criminal trespass or outraged religious feelings, and whether the FIR's allegations met the necessary legal standards. (Paras 4, 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the complaint lacked the necessary elements to constitute the alleged offences, emphasizing that not every act of expression can be penalized under Section 295A without malicious intent. (Paras 6, 9)
Result: Writ Petition allowed; entire proceedings quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's analysis of ipc sections and their applicability. (Para 8) |
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners/accused 1 and 2 are before this Court calling in question a crime in crime No.86 of 2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 447 , 295A, 505, 506 and 34 of the IPC and pending before the II Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada District.
2. Heard Sri B.S. Sachin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. R. Sowmya, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 though served a year ago, has remained unrepresented even today.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
Based upon an incident that took place on 24-09-2023, a complaint comes to be registered by the 2nd respondent before the Station House Officer, Kadaba Police Station, Puttur Circle. The allegation of the 2nd respondent is that at about 10.50 p.m. on 24-09-2023 some unknown persons barged into the Masjid and shouted slogans saying ‘Jai Sriram” and alleged to have threatened that they will not leave the community. On the next day i.e., on 25-09-2023 comes the complaint which becomes a crime. It is the complaint that on checking the CCTV installed in the Masjid it was seen that one unknown car and some unknown persons in the bike were moving here and there around the Masjid. Accordingly, the complaint comes to be registered. The complaint named unknown persons, but while conducting investigation, these petitioners are drawn as accused 1 and 2. The registration of crime is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would vehemently contend that none of the ingredients that are necessary for the aforesaid allegations are even present in the case at hand. The offence, at the outset, is under Section 447 of the IPC which deals with criminal trespass. It is his submission that a Masjid is a public place. Entry into it cannot mean a criminal trespass. The other offences are under Sections 295A , 505 and 506 of the IPC. Even those ingredients are not present in the case at hand is his submission.
5. The learned High Court Government Pleader would refute the submissions to contend that the petitioners cannot enter into the Masjid and shout ‘Jai Sriram’ or threaten the muthavalli. It is, therefore, the matter requires investigation in the least and would seek dismissal of the petition.
6. The afore-narrated incident is said to have happened on 24-09-2023. A complaint comes to be registered by one C.M. Hyder Ali/2nd respondent. The complaint reads as follows:
The complaint is that on the night of 24-09-2023 some unknown persons entered the mosque and shouted the slogan ‘Jai Sriram’ and said to have threatened that they will not leave the community and thereafter are said to have ran away from the spot. The complaint also narrates that Hindus and Muslims in the jurisdiction of Kadaba Police Station are living in great harmony and these persons who have shouted ‘Jai Sriram’ are creating a rift between the communities. Therefore, the crime is registered. It becomes germane to notice the offences so laid against the petitioners. The offence punishable under Section 295A of the IPC reads as follows:
”295-A. 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.”
Section 295A deals with deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. It is ununderstandable as to
