The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, r/w section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to quash the sanction issued by Respondent No. 3 dated 16/10/2021 dated 16/10/2021. The Court observed that the 2nd respondent, without application of mind and without assigning any reason, has passed the order granting sanction to prosecute the petitioner for the aforesaid offense.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner had circulated the video stating that the person in the video was assaulted by five persons by Talwar, and they belonged to Sangies. On verification, it was found that a person by the name Mohammad Shafi, petitioner herein, had video graphed the incident, and the accused had understood the sign language of the said deaf and dumb person. It is further alleged that the injured deaf and dumb person had sustained accidental injury.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by respondent No.1 granting sanction to prosecute the petitioner for the offense punishable under Section 505 of IPC is not a speaking order as stated under Section 196 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 granting sanction is not sustainable in law.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that after perusing the material placed, respondent No.2 has accorded sanction to prosecute, and the same does not warrant any interference. He further submits that the application of mind before passing an order granting sanction is not mandatory when the material placed along with the requisition clearly discloses the commission of offense alleged against the petitioner.
The Court noted that Section 196 of Cr.P.C states that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government.
The Court observed that the 2nd respondent, without application of mind and without assigning any reason, has passed the order granting sanction to prosecute the petitioner for the aforesaid offense. It is incumbent on the State Government to pass speaking orders clearly recording reasons while justifying permission to prosecute any citizen.
The Court remarked that the essential elements to constitute the offense punishable under Section 505(2) of IPC are conspicuously absent since there is no allegation that the Petitioner circulated the video to promote or attempted to create ill will between religious groups or between two communities.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, allowing the petition, held that the impugned proceedings pending on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC stands quashed.
Case Title: Mohammad Shafi v The State of Karnataka & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Hemant Chandangoudar
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 23145 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Lethif B
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Venkatsatyanarayan
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :