Sri R Riyaz vs The State Of Karnataka By
2021 Latest Caselaw 1402 Kant

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                          BEFORE

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

            CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5796 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

Sri R.Riyaz
S/o late Rasool Saheb
Aged 47 years
R/a No.G-12, BSR Sai Palace
Apartment, Viratnagar
Bommanahalli
Bengaluru-560068.
                                                ... Petitioner
(By Sri Afsar Ahmed,S, Advocate)

AND:

  1. The State of Karnataka
     By Bommanahalli Police Station
     Bengaluru City
     Rep. by the State Public Prosecutor
     High Court of Karnataka
     Bengaluru-560001.

  2. Sri Mohammaed Shaff
     S/o Imam Sab
     Aged about 36 years
     R/a No.76/2, 3rd Cross, Madina Nagar
     Mangammanapalya
     Bommanahalli
     Bengaluru-560068.
                                            .. Respondents
(By Smt.Namitha Mahesh.B.G., HCGP for R1,
    R2 is served)
                          -----
                                      2



      This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the
entire proceedings/investigation in Cr.No.154/2020 for the
offence punishable under Section 505(2) of IPC, 1860, pending
on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City
and etc.,

      This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this day,
the court made the following through video conference :

                           ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,

praying this Court to quash the entire

proceedings/investigation in Crime No.154/2020 registered

by 1st respondent-Police for the offence punishable under

Section 505(2) of IPC.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that after

pronouncement of the judgment of Ayodhya's case by the

Hon'ble Apex Court, in the Facebook regarding the

judgment in between the complainant and this petitioner,

there was exchange of message that the judgment is in

favour of a particular religion and not in favour of the

country. However, it is mentioned that they should obey

the judgment of the Supreme Court. Based on the

complaint, a case has been registered for the above offence.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the

argument would submit that the reference which has been

made in the Facebook does not invoke the offence under

Section 505(2) of IPC and unfortunately, the respondent-

Police at the instance of the Deputy Commissioner, crime

was registered after 23 days. The counsel would contend

that the same is the opinion which he has right to express

under Section 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The

counsel would also submit that the Facebook message was

also withdrawn.

4. The learned HCGP would submit that earlier

this Court directed to secure the material and the same is

placed before the Court.

5. Having perused the records, it is seen that

message was exchanged between the two persons. Having

perused the contents of the same, ultimately it is stated

that they are bound by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court. Taking note of the withdrawal of the message and

taking into note of the Facebook exchanges, I am of the

opinion that it does not attract Section 505(2) of the IPC

since ultimately he say they are bound to obey the

Supreme Court Judgment.

In view of the discussion made above, I made the

following :-

ORDER

The petition is allowed.

The case registered in Crime No.154/2020 by

1st respondent-Police against the petitioner is hereby

quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE ssb