ORDER

This petition had been filed to quash the private complaint filed for the offences under Sections 504, 505(1)(b), 505(2), 153A(1)(a) and 153A(1)(b) IPC, which was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate Court-II, Ariyalur in C.C.No.14 of 2018.

2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the ingredients of the Charge Sheet as well as the FIR. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that mere uttering such words will not attract the ingredients of the Section 153A hatred towards a particular community, religion or caste, etc,. In support of his submission he relies on the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balwant Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab reported in AIR 1995 SC1785, which is the relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:-

"Case Note:

Criminal - reasonable doubt - Sections 124A and

153A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 14 of Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984 - appeal under 14 challenging conviction and sentence for offence punishable under Sections 124A and 153A - Section 124A and 153A provides for punishment when accused attempts to bring into hatred or excites dissatisfaction towards Government established by law in India and for promoting enmity between different groups - raising some slogans only couple of times by lonesome appellants which neither evoked any response nor any reaction from public can neither attract provisions of Section 124A or 153A - prosecution has not succeeded in establishing case against appellants beyond reasonable doubt - conviction and sentence of appellants cannot be sustained - appeal allowed.

A plain reading of the above Section would show that its application would be attracted only when the accused brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India, by words either written or spoken or visible signs or representations etc. Keeping in view the prosecution evidence that the slogans as noticed above were raised a couple of times only by the appellant and that neither the slogans evoked a response from any other person of the Sikh community or reaction from people of other communities, we find it difficult to hold that upon the raising of such casual slogans, a couple of times without any other act whatsoever the charge of sedition can be founded. It is not the prosecution case that the appellants were either leading a procession or were otherwise raising the slogans with the intention to incite people to create disorder or that the slogans in fact created any law and order problem. It does not appear to us that the police should have attached much significance to the casual slogans raised by two appellants, a couple of times and read to much into them. The prosecution has admitted that no disturbance, whatsoever, was caused by the raising of the slogans by the appellants and that inspite of the fact that the appellants raised the slogans a couple of times, the people, in general, were un-affected and carried on with their normal activities. The casual raising of the Slogans, once or twice by two individuals alone cannot be said to be aimed at exciting or attempt to excite hatred or disaffection towards the Government as established by law in India, Section 124A IPC, would in the facts and circumstances of the case have no application whatsoever and would not be attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case.

8. In so far as the offence under Section 153AIPC is concerned, it provides for punishment for promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever or brings about disharmony or feeling of hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities. In our opinion only where the written or spoken words have the tendency or intention o