1. Petition to quash an FIR registered for alleged offences under Sections 153A, 295A, 120B of IPC, and Section 3 of the Karnataka Open Place Disfigurement Act, 1951. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 55874
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.671 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. MAHAMMED HANIF S/O HAJI MOIDEEN AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT 2-43A/9, 2ND BLOCK, KATIPALLA HOUSE MANGALORE D.K.-575030.
2. MOIDIN S/O MUHAMMED AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT 2-58, INDIRA NAGAR
Digi tally signed H M E A L N E G Y A A L N O G R A E D , Y D .K.-574146. by DEVIKA M L C K o A O c R U a N t R i A o T n T O :A F H K I A GH
3.S A A / G B O B E U D B B . A A H B K A O K M U A M T R A 4 B 9 B Y A E ARS R/AT 6-135 J/A SITE NO.236, AROOBA ENCLAVE6TH BLOCK, KRISHNAPURA SURATHKAL, MANGALORE D.K.-575014.
4. SHAHUL HAMEED S/O BAVA BYARI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT # 14/48, MADDA HOUSE B MOODA BANTWAL JODUMARGA DK-574219.
5. YASEER ARAFAT S/O HASANABBA K AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT # 20.2-141/76, FLAT NO 802/A, 4TH FLOOR NALAPAD KUNIL TOWER NELLIKARYI ROAD KASABA BAZAR, MANGALORE-575013.
6. K.M. SIRAJUDDIN S/O K. MAYYADDI DOOR NO 2-103-34(2) GANDHI NAGAR POST KAVOOR MANGALORE-575015.
7. MOHAMMED IQBAL S/O V. ABDUL KADAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT # 7-562, KASBA BAZAR, BUNDER, MANGALORE D.K.575001.
8. MOHAMMAD NAWAZ S/O ISMAIL AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT # 196-84/14, ISMAIL MASTER COMPOUND MASTIKATTE ULLAR D.K.575020.
9. ABDUL KADAR S/O UNCHI BYARI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT # 2-141/8, FLAT NO.206 MALAOAD KUNIL TOWER BLOCK NELLIKAI ROAD, PANDESHWARA POST DK-575001.
10. ABDUL RAZAK S/O MARPU BYARI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT # 4-19, TENKAYADAPADU MANGALORE, DK-575020.
11. ABDUL HAKEEM S/O P.S. MOIDEEN KUNCHI AGED ABOUT 29 YEAR R/AT # 1-44, POOMAN HOUSE NEAR FALHAL SCHOOL KC NAGAR TALAPADY DK-575023.
12. MOHAMMED SEENAN S/O MOOSA KUNCHI AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT # 18-34/10, DHARMANAGAR BOTTU ULLAL MASTIKATTE ULLAL, MANGALORE, DK-575020.
13. ABBOBAKKAR SIDDIK S/O U.B. ALIYABBA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT # 18-34/21(2)ASMA MANZIL BAIL BOTTU ULLAL MANGALORE, DK-575020.
…PETITIONERS
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH MANGALORE PS REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560001.
2. SEETHARAMA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT MANGALORE SOUTH PS PANDESHWAR MANGALORE CITY D.K.-575001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ISMAIL MUNEEB MUSBA, ADVOCATE)
(BY SRI. SUHAS GOWDA M., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argued that expressing dissent against judicial orders is protected under Article 19, whereas the state contended that public posters caused disharmony and enmity between groups. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
3. Court observed that criticism of judicial pronouncements does not per se constitute sedition or promote communal disharmony unless the intent and material impact on reasonable people are clearly demonstrated. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. Dissent against judicial decisions in a lawful manner is protected under Articles 19 and 21, and such expressions inherently lack the intent required for offences under Sections 153A and 295A IPC. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
5. The criminal petition is allowed and the subject FIR is quashed in its entirety. (Para 12 )
6. Does criticizing a judicial judgment in a public place by pinning it as denial of justice attract Section 153A IPC?
No. The court held that simple expressions of dissent regarding a judicial decision do not promote disharmony or enmity between religions or groups. For Section 153A to apply, the utterance must have a general impact on a significant number of reasonable people and manifest an intention to create enmity. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
7. Under what constitutional protection does the right to dissent against state decisions fall?
The right to dissent against and criticize government decisions in a lawful manner is a fundamental democratic right protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India. (Para 5 , 11 )
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 16.11.2019 IN CR.NO.222/2019 AND COMPLAINT REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3 OF KARNATAKA OPEN PLACE DISFIGUREMENT ACT, 1951 AND SECTIONS 153A, 295A AND 120B OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C.-II COURT, MANGALORE CITY, D.K., PRODUCED HERETO AS ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The prayer is sought before this Court to quash FIR in Crime No.222/2019 registered against the petitioners under Sections 153A, 295A and 120B of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of Karnataka Open Place Disfigurement Act, 1951 and1981.
3. The FIR is registered based on the complaint lodged by Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Mangalore South Police Station, Pandeshwar, Mangalore, wherein in the complaint- Annexure-B, it is stated that judgment delivered by the Apex Court is denial of justice and raise the voice for justice and it is also mentioned that it is from ‘Popular front of India’ and the same slogans were found in the walls by the side of the road.Hence, invoked the above offences and registered the case.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that very registration of case against the petitioners is an error and complaint does not disclose any offence for invoking the offence under Sections 153A and 295A and even there is no conspiracy to invoke Section 120B of IPC. The counsel also would contend that under Article 19 of Constitution of India, all citizens have right to ‘freedom of speech’ and when the judgment was delivered, the said slogan was found in the walls by the side of the road, but that does not amount to sedition for invoking the offence under Section 295A and this Court has to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in support of his argument relied upon recent judgment of the Apex Court in JAVED AHMAD HAJAM vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER reported in (2024) 4 SCC 156 and in this judgment, the Apex Court discussed scope of Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India and right to lead dignified life under article 21 and cautioned however, the protest or dissent must be within fours of modes permissible in a democracy. The said right is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed in accordance with Article 19(2). The counsel also brought to notice of this Court when the discussion was made with regard to Section 153-A, offence of sedition, Test is of general impact of words or expressions on significant number of reasonable people, right to dissent against Government decisions in lawful manner forms part of democracy and is protected under Article 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution and also the Court has to take note of intention and essential ingredient of offence under Section 153A. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court when the FIR is registered, the Apex Court has stated that police must be sensitized in democratic values enshrined in the Constitution, including the right to dissent against and criticize Government decisions when done in a lawful manner.
6. The counsel also relied upon judgments of the Apex Court in BILAL AHMED KALOO vs. STATE OF A.P. reported in (1997) 7 SCC 431, MANZAR SAYEED KHAN vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER reported in (2007) 5 SCC 1 and order passed by this Court in MAHABOOB GHOUSE AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF YADGIRI TOWN POLICE in W.P.NOS.19700-19715/2015 dated 06.12.2018, order passed by this Court in SRI AJIT HANUMAKKANAVAR vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER in CRL.P.NO.6/2019 dated 24.01.2019, so also order passed by this Court in SRI K.N. SHAILESH HOLLA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER in W.P.NO.24
