Sayed Mohammad Tanveer Peera vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 5888 Kant

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                        BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

           CRIMINAL PETITION No.201448/2021


BETWEEN:

SAYED MOHAMMAD TANVEER PEER ZADE
S/O SAYED BRUHANUDDIN HUSSAIN PEERZADE (HASHMI)
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: RELIGIOUS SCHOLAR
R/O HAJARAT HASEEMPEER DARGA
STATE ROAD, VIJAYPUR
                                      ...PETITIONER

           (BY SRI SRINIVAS B NAIK, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH AT KALABURAGI - 585 107
THROUGH GHANDI CHOWK POLICE STATION
VIJAYAPUR
                                         ...RESPONDENT

           (BY SRI GURURAJ V HASILKAR, HCGP)

    THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING THIS COURT TO QUASH ENTIRE
CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.7315/2019 ON THE FILE OF JMFC
I COURT, VIJAYAPURA, CR.NO.207/2018 OF GANDHI CHOWK
POLICE STATION AND ETC.
                               2




     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and also the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the State.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the

complainant who is working as a Civil Head Constable in

the Gandi Chowka police station in the complaint alleged

that on 16.06.2018, on account of Ramzan festival, the

complainant and other were deputed on Bandobast duty

and when they are in duty, prayer was started and after

completion of the prayer, this petitioner started addressing

the public and while addressing the public, he made

provoking statement creating enmity between the groups

on the ground of religion, race, place, caste and language.

Hence, the offence punishable under Sections 506 and 117

of IPC and Section 7 of Religious Institutions (Prevention of

Misuse) Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') were

invoked. After the investigation, Section 505(2) of IPC

was invoked.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in his

argument vehemently contend that in order to invoke

Section 505(2) of IPC, permission is necessary to invoke

the said offence and also the learned counsel for the

petitioner would submit that the invoked offence is also

under Section 153 of IPC and no permission is sought.

Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon

the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

BHAJANLAL vs STATE OF HARYANA and prays this

Court to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

The counsel submit that the contents of the complaint also

does not attract any offence for creating hatredness

between the religion and hence, continuing of the case

amounts to an abuse of process.

4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader for the State would submit that the very contents

of the complaint is very clear that it creates hatredness

among the religion and also made the speech of taking

away the life of the persons belongs to other religion and

hence, the very speech attracts Sections 117 and 506 of

IPC and also Section 7 of the Act of 1988 and apart from

that it attract Section 505(2) of IPC. He further submit that

the permission was sought before registering the case on

21.08.2018 and the Deputy Commissioner gave permission

on 25.11.2019 and hence, invoked Section 505(2) of IPC

and there was a compliance.

5. Having heard the respective counsel and also

on perusal of the material on record it discloses that the

contents of the complaint where there is a specific

allegation is made against the petitioner with regard to

creation of hatredness among the religion, permission was

also taken before filing the charge sheet for the offence

under Section 505(2) of IPC. The police at the time of

investigation, firstly, invoked Sections 506 and 117 of IPC

and Section 7 of the Act of 1988 and later on Section

505(2) of IPC was invoked. When permission was taken

before invoking Section 505(2) of IPC and having

considered the contents of the complaint as well as the

material collected by the IO, the very contention that there

was no any such ingredients of offence under Section

505(2) of IPC does not attracts cannot be accepted. The

learned High Court Government Pleader for the State

would submit that while filing the charge sheet for Section

505(2) of IPC, permission was obtained from the

concerned Authority. The allegation is that the statement

was made creating or promoting enmity, hatredness

between the different groups of people. Hence, taken into

consideration of the contents of the speech and the

statement of the petitioner, it is clear that the same is

nothing but creating enmity and hatredness between the

religion. Hence, the very contention of the learned counsel

for the petitioner that it does not attract the ingredients of

Section 505(2) of IPC cannot be accepted.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied

upon the principles laid down in the judgment reported in

(2007)5 SCC 1. The Apex Court held in paragraph 18 that

it is necessary that at least two such groups or

communities should be involved. The same is not

applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Another

decision relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner that

(1997)7 SCC 431 wherein an observation is made that

whoever makes, publishes or circulates in Section 505(2)

must be interpreted as supplementary to each other and

not disjunctively and the same is also not applicable to the

facts of the case on hand and the same is discussed in

paragraph 10 of the judgment and having considered the

principles laid down in the judgment particularly discussion

made in paragraphs 10 and 12 with regard to the

distinction between the two offences is concerned and

having considered the factual aspect of the case, the same

is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The

other judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the

petitioner is 2021 SCC Online SC 258 wherein in

paragraph 11, the Apex Court also discussed the judgment

of the earlier judgment of Bilal's case with regard to

Section 153-A covers a case where a person by words,

either spoken or written or by signs or by visible

representations, promotes or attempts to promote feeling

of enmity, hatred or ill will is also not applicable to the

facts of the case on hand.

7. The Court has to look into the facts of each

case and in the case on hand, the specific allegations are

made against this petitioner is that in his speech he

created hatredness among the groups and also even he

had gone into making the speech to take away the life of

the persons who objects for their spiritual formalities.

When such being the facts and circumstances of the case,

it is not a fit case to exercise the powers under Section

482 of Cr.P.C.

8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass

the following:

ORDER

The petition is rejected.

In view of disposal of the main petition,

I.A.No.1/2021 for stay does not survive for

consideration and accordingly, it is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SAN