CAV ORDER

1.The petitioner/accused No.1 is at the doors of this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.4 of 2021 registered for offences punishable under Section 295A of the IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).

2. FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

The factual narrative, shorn of embellishment, is this. The 2^nd respondent claims that on 23-01-2021 he received a whatsapp link from an unknown source under the name “Bajarangi Go Kallaru”. Upon accessing the link, he was added to a whatsapp group consisting of 6 administrators and nearly 250 participants. According to the complainant, obscene and deeply offensive images, depicting deities of the Hindu pantheon and certain political figures have been repeatedly circulated in the group. Alleging that the content was deliberately intended to outrage religious feelings and insult religious beliefs, a complaint was lodged, culminating in registration of crime No.4 of 2021. Investigation ensued. Electronic devices were seized, screenshots were collected, and group details were obtained. One of the administrators of the group was apprehended, who surrendered his mobile device. The petitioner was later arrested, his device is seized and was produced before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. He was enlarged on bail on 16-02-2021. It is the registration of the crime and continuation of investigation, that is questioned before this Court.

3. Heard Sri T.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Rakshith Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

SUBMISSIONS:

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the learned Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the offence under Section 295A of the IPC, as no previous sanction as necessary under Section 196(1) of the Cr.P.C., was obtained from any of the Competent Authorities. The Investigating Officer has been negligent and has failed to make necessary application under Section 67C of the Act directing the intermediaries, specifically Airtel and Jio, to preserve the contents in the electronic form, as it has been more than 4 years and 2 months and the electronic evidence would be destroyed by default by the intermediaries. He would project bias and partisan attitude of the Investigating Officer, as the creator of the group is not taken into custody nor investigation is conducted against him. The petitioner is singled out for penal action. He would submit that there is no role of the petitioner neither directly nor indirectly in the complaint, except mention of the telephone number of the petitioner. It is his submission that every act would not become an offence under Section 295A of the IPC, as the acts have no effect of bringing out breach of peace or destruction of public order.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent would vehemently refute the submissions in contending that sanction under Section 196 of the Cr.P.C., is not required for registration of a FIR or conduct of an investigation for offence under Section 295A of the IPC. It is only when the charge sheet is filed and upon which cognizance is taken, it is at that point in time sanction would require. That stage is yet to arrive. The offence under Section 295A has been clearly made out in the case at hand. Explicit photographs of Hindu Gods and Goddesses are posted in the group, thereby maliciously insulting the religious feelings of the de-facto complainant. He would seek dismissal of the petition and permitting further investigation to be conducted in the case at hand.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. In furtherance whereof, the issues that call for consideration are:

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION:

(i) Whether s