Karnataka High Court
Anant Kumar Dattatray Hegde vs State Of Karnataka on 7 November, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44930
CRL.P No. 1561 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1561 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
ANANT KUMAR DATTATRAY HEGDE
AGE. 55 YEARS
MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT
R/O. K.H.B. COLONY SIRSI
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 313
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KUMTA POLICE STATION
BY SUB-INSPECTOR (INVESTIGATION-2)
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD - 580 011.
Digitally signed
by NAGAVENI 2. MANJUNATH GOUDAR
Location: HIGH POICE SUB-INSPECTOR (LAW AND ORDER)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA KUMTA POLICE STATION, KUMTA
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 313,
REP.BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR REGISTERED BY
KUMTA POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.0007/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE U/S 153, 153A, 505(2) OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE
OF PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUMTA.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44930
CRL.P No. 1561 of 2024
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the
registration of crime in Crime No.7/2024 for offences
punishable under Sections 153, 153A, 505(2) of the IPC,
pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and
J.M.F.C., Kumta.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.H.Pavana Chandra
Shetty, appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional
State Public Prosecutor Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, appearing for the
respondents.
3. The petitioner is a Member of Parliament, from
North Kanara Lok Sabha constituency and is also a former
Union Minister of State for Skill Development and
Entrepreneurship. The issue in the lis revolves around an
incident that takes place on 13.01.2024. It is alleged that the
petitioner during the ceremony of Shri Ram Lalla in Ayodhya
NC: 2024:KHC:44930
gave 'Akshate' to Hindus and to invite them on the said date for
a pious ceremony.
4. The second respondent - Sub-Inspector of Police of
Kumta Police Station registers a crime on the very day alleging
that the acts of the petitioner is capable of building disharmony
amongst religious groups and therefore registers a crime which
becomes a crime in Crime No.7/2024 for the afore-quoted
offences. The registration of the crime is what has driven the
petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
5. The learned counsel Sri.Pavana Chandra Shetty,
would submit that the petitioner has only given sacred rice
calling others to participate in the ceremony of Shri Ram Lalla
to be held in Ayodhya, and has allegedly built a podium kind of
a thing to hoist the flag of Bhagwa Dhwaj. The learned
counsel would submit that this cannot mean to become the
ingredients of the afore-quoted offences.
6. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor would vehemently refute the submission contending
that the petitioner should not have indulged in hoisting the flag
of Bhagwa Dhwaj, without the permission of the Authorities by
NC: 2024:KHC:44930
erecting temporary podium to hoist the flag. Therefore, it
becomes an offence and the offence needs to be tried. He
would seek dismissal of the petition.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
contentions of respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The
issue lies in a narrow compass for which it is necessary to
notice the complaint so registered. The complaint reads as
follows:
" ೆ,
ಾ ಾ ಾ ಗಳ ,
ಕುಮ ಾ ೕ ಾ ೆ
ಸ|| ತ|| ಾ : ೕ ಮಂಜು ಾಥ ೌಡರ, ೕ ಉಪ-' ೕ(ಕರು
[ ಾ&ಸೂ] ಕುಮ ಾ ೕಸ ಾ ೆ
ಆ+ೋ,ತರು : ೕ ಅನಂತಕು/ಾರ 0ೆಗ1ೆ. ಸಂಸದರು ೆನ+ಾ 3ೋಕಸ4ಾ
5ೇತ 6ಾಸ : ರ , ಉತ7ರ ಕನ8ಡ 93ೆ:.
***********
<ಾ+ಾಂಶ :-
ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ತಮ@ ಬB ೆ ಬ+ೆದು ೊಡುವ ದೂರು ಏ ೆಂದ+ೇ, ಈ ವಸ
ಾಂಕ: 13-01-2024 ರಂದು 11-20 ಗಂ ೆ ಸು/ಾ ೆ ೕ ಅನಂತಕು/ಾರ 0ೆಗ1ೆ.
ಸಂಸದರು ೆನ+ಾ 3ೋಕಸ4ಾ 5ೇತ ಇವರು ಅFೕGೆHಯ : '/ಾ ಣ6ಾಗುK7ರುವ
NC: 2024:KHC:44930
ೕ+ಾಮ ಮಂ ರ ಉLಾMಟ ೆಯ ಪ ಯುಕ7 ಮಂOಾ (Oೆ 'ೕಡುವ ಸಲು6ಾP ಮತು7 ಅವರ
ಪ 6ಾಸ ಾಯ 'QತH ಕುಮ ಾದ ಪ 6ಾಸ ಮಂ ರ ೆR SೇT 'ೕU ಅ : <ೇ ದV W.Xೆ.,.
ಮುಖಂಡರ ಮತು7 ಾಯ ಕತ ರನು8 ಉLೆVೕ Z /ಾತ ಾಡುK7ರು6ಾಗ ಅವರ Sಾಷಣವನು8
\UFೕ /ಾUದುV ಅದರ : .....
+ಾಮಜನ@ಭೂQ `ಾ ರಂಭ ಆPLೆ ಅದರ XೊOೆಯ : ಭಟRಳದ aನ8ದ ಪBbನೂ
ಇLೆ ನಮ ೆನೂ ಮು3ಾc P3ಾc ಇ3ಾ: ಪK ೆಯವರು ೇರ6ಾP ಬ+ೊBb ಇದನ8 Oೆ d
ಅಂOಾ Sೇ ಾದೂ ಅಂLೊBb ೆಲವe ಮಂ , ಏನು OೊಂLೆ ಇ3ಾ:, /ಾ1ೊf ಾHರಂTgೕ.
ಇದು hಂದೂ ಸ/ಾಜದ Kೕ/ಾ ನ, ಅನಂತ ಕು/ಾರ 0ೆಗ1ೆಯ Kೕ/ಾ ನ ಅ3ಾ:. ರZಯ
\ಜಯ \ಠಲ Lೇವ<ಾjನ ಇತು7 Z, ಬXಾರದ : ಇತ ಕRಂತಹ ಮZೕ ಏ'Lೆ Lೊಡlದು ಅದು
\ಜಯ \ಠಲ Lೇವ<ಾjನ. ೕರಂಗಪಟmಣದ : ಇರತಕRಂತಹ Lೊಡl ಮZೕ ಯಂತ
ಕ Oಾರ3ಾ: ಅದು /ಾರುK Lೇವ<ಾjನ. ಇವತೂ7 0ೋದರು /ಾರುK ಮೂK ಾಣುOೆ7 <ೋ
hೕ ೆ Lೇಶದ ಮೂ3ೆ ಮೂ3ೆಗಳ : ಹBbಯ ಮೂ3ೆ ಮೂ3ೆಗಳ : ಅಪ/ಾನ
ೊಂUರತಕRಂತಹ ಅ ೇಕ ಸಂ ೇತಗBLಾV6ೆ. ಅದರ nತು7 0ಾ ೋತನಕ ಈ hಂದೂ ಸ/ಾಜ
ಮOೆ7 6ಾ`ಾ ಕುOೊ7o ೆp ಲ:. ಈ ರಣ4ೈರವ ಎLಾVPLೆ. ಈಗ ಇನು8 ಮOೆ7 ಕುOೊRoೆp
ಪ sೆ8gೕ ಇ3ಾ: ಇದ ೆR <ೇಡು <ಾ\ರ ವಷ ಗಳ <ೇಡನು8 Kೕ Z ೊಳbLೇ ಇದV+ೆ ಇದು
hಂದೂ ರಕ7 ಅ3ಾ: ಅ ೊ8 ಅಂತದVನು8 ಸtಷm6ಾP hಂದೂ ಸ/ಾಜ 0ೇಳ ತ7Lೆ.
ಋಣ ಇಟುm ೊಂಡ ಸ/ಾಜ ಅ3ಾ: ಕv ೕ ನಮುw ಋಣ ಇ1ೊRಂU+ೋ ಸ/ಾಜ
ಅಲ:6ೇ ಅ3ಾ: ಋಣವನ8 Kೕ<ೇ KೕರZ7ೕ\. <ಾ\ರ ವಷ ಗಳ ಋಣ ಇLೇ ಕv ೕ ನxy. ಅದನ8
Kೕ ಸLೇ ಾವe ಸುx8 ಕುOೊRಂ1ೆ ಇದ ೆR hಂದೂ ರ ಾ7 ಅಂOಾ ಕ+ೆFೕ ೇ ಇಲ:. ಇದು
ಶುರು6ಾPLೆ +ಾಮಜನ@ಭೂQ XೊOೆ ೆ zದಲ `ಾ ರಂಭ ಶುರು6ಾ{ತು. ಇUೕ hಂದೂ
ಸ/ಾಜ ಎಷುm ಒ1ೆ LಾV+ೆ , XಾK 0ೆಸ ನ : ಒ1ೆದರು, `ಾ Lೇ ಕOೆಯ 0ೆಸ ನ :
ಒ1ೆದರು, 4ಾ}ೆಯ 0ೆಸ ನ : ಒ1ೆದರು, ಎಷುm ನಮ@ನ8 ಒ1ೆFೕ ಪ ಯOಾ8 ಏ ೆ3ಾ:
/ಾUದರೂ ಇನು8 ನಮ@ ಾ8 ಒUOಾ ೆ ಇLಾV+ೆ ಮೂಖ +ಾಮಯHನಂತವರು. ಎಷುm ಒ1ೆದರು
ಆದರೂ ಕೂ1ಾ hಂದೂ ಸ/ಾಜ ಇವತು7 ಒಗy ಾmP 'ಂOೊRಂULೆ. ಎ VLೇ ರಣ4ೈರವ ಾP
'ಂOೊRಂULೆ ಇದ ೆR 0ೊಸ ೆಲುವನ8 ಮುಂ ನ ಶತ/ಾನದ :ಯೂ ಾವe ಾ ೋ 0ಾ ೆ
ಆಗSೇಕು ಅದ ೊRಸRರ ಅQ~ }ಾ 0ೇBದುV ಈ Sಾ ಯ ೆಲುವe 0ೇPರSೇಕಂತ ಮುಂ ನ
ವಸದ : ಅದನ8 ಅBಸ ೆR ನಮ@ ಹತ ನೂ ಆಗSಾರದು. 0ೊ1ೆದ 0ೊ1ೆತ 0ೇPರSೇಕು
ಅಂದ+ೆ ಪeನಜ ನ@ನೂ ZಗSಾರದು. ಈ ಜ ಾ@ ಅಂತೂ ೆoೆದು0ೊಗುOೆ7 ಮುಂ ನ
ಜನ@ದ :ಯೂ ಪeನಃ ಅವನು ಇವOೆ7ೕ <ಾಯSೇಕು. 0ೊ1ೆದ 0ೊ1ೆತ hೕPರSೇಕು. <ೋ ಈ
'Tmನ : ನ€ಮ 0ೊ1ೆತ \+ೋ ಗB ೆ ಆಗSೇಕು ಾಂ ೆ ೕ ನಮ@ \+ೋ ಅ3ಾ:
NC: 2024:KHC:44930
ಾಂ ೆ ೕZ ೆ ನಮ@ನ8 \+ೋಧ /ಾ1ೋ ೆ`ಾHZT ೇ ಇ3ಾ:. ನಮ@ \+ೋ ಗಳ ನಮ@
ತ3ೆಯ : ಹುಚುƒ ಹುಳವನು8 WಡOಾರಲ: hಂದುತ„ದ \+ೋ ಹುಳಗಳ , ಸ ಾತನದ \+ೋ
ಹುಳಗಳ . ಇದ ೆ83ಾ: /ಾOಾ1ಾ7ರ3ಾ: ಅವರು ನಮ@ \+ೋ ಗಳ ಈ ಾಂ ೆ ೕ ನಮ@
\+ೋ ಅಲ:6ೇ ಅ3ಾ:. +ಾಜ ಾರಣ ೊRೕಸRರ ಅದು ಇದು ವದ+ಾಡ7 ಇರಕRಂತದುV. ನಮ@
\+ೋ ZದV+ಾಮಯH, ಾಂ ೆ ೕ ಅ3ಾ:. ಾ ೆಂದ+ೆ ಆ ಗK ೆಟm /ಾನZಕOೆ ಏ'Lೆ
ಹ+ಾXಾP 0ೋPರತಕRಂತಹ ಅಲtಸಂ...ಾHತರ ಓT ೆ ಹ+ಾXಾP 0ೋPರತಕRಂತಹ
/ಾನZಕOೆ ಏ'Lೆ ಅದು ನಮ@ \+ೋಧ. +ಾಜnೕಯ \+ೋ ಅ3ಾ:. +ಾಜnೕಯ
1ೆ/ಾಕ Zಯ : ಒಂದು ಪ( ಬರುOೆ7 ಒಂದು ಪ( 0ೋಗುOೆ7 ಇದು <ಾ„4ಾ\ಕ. ಾoೆ ಾ6ೇನು
ಪಮ ೆಂT+ೊ ಲ:. ಮOೊ7ಂದು ಪ( ಬರುOೆ7. ಆದ+ೆ ಆ ಗK ೆಟm /ಾನZಕOೆ ಏ'Lೆ ಅದು
ನಮ@ \+ೋಧ. ಅದ ೆR ನಮ@ \+ೋಧ. ಅhಂದೂ /ಾನZಕOೆ ಅದು ನಮ@ \+ೋಧ,
+ಾಮಜನ@ಭೂQ ಇ'„ ೇಷ‡ ಬಂದು +ಾಮ ಜನ@ಭೂQ ಇ'„ ೇಷ‡ ನxy ಬಂ ಲ:,
ಆxೕ3ೆ ಬಂದು ಾ 0ೋಗು ಲ: ಅಂದರು. 'ೕ ಬರ Wಡು +ಾಮಜನ@ಭೂQ ಏನು 'ಲು: ಲ:
ಮಗ ೆ. ಇವತು7 0ೇoಾ7+ೆ 0ೋP7', ಅವತು7 0ೋಗು ಲ: ಆxೕ3ೆ 0ೋP7' ಾನು. ಅಂದ+ೆ
hಂದೂ ಸ/ಾಜದ Oಾಕತು7 ಕv ೕ ಇದು. ೇವಲ ಎಂಟು ವಸಗಳ : ಧˆ' ಬದ3ಾಯು7.
zದಲು ಇ'„ ೇಷ‡ ಬಂ 3ಾ: ಅಂದರು ಆxೕ3ೆ ಇ'„ ೇಷ‡ ಬಂದರು ಾವe 0ೋಗಲ:
ಅಂದರು ಇವತು7 0ೋP7', ಾನು 22 ೆR 0ೋಗು ಲ: ಆxೕ3ೆ 0ೋP7' ಅಂOಾ ಅಂOಾ+ೆ.
ಇದು hಂದೂ ಸ/ಾಜದ ಧ€.
ಾವe Kೕ/ಾ ನ /ಾU+ೊ ಮುಹೂತ ಅ3ಾ: ಅದು ಭಗವಂತ Kೕ/ಾ ನ
/ಾUದ ಮುಹೂತ , ಕುOೊRಂಡು ಪಂUತರು PÉ®ÄÌöå¯ÉÃmï /ಾUರತಕRಂತಹ ಪಂŠಾಂಗ ಅಲ:.
sಾಪ 0ೇPರOೆ7 ಅಂOಾ ೋU, ತುಂSಾ ಮಂ ೆ ೊK73ಾ:. ಇಂ +ಾ ಾಂ ಪ Gಾನ
ಮಂK ಾPದು . ಆವK7ನ ವಸ ೋಹOೆH '}ೇಧದ ಬ ೆy ತುಂSಾ Lೊಡl ಆಂLೋಲನ
ನUೕತು. ಆ ಆಂLೋಲನದ : ಸಂತರು ಕೂಡ ಸತು , <ಾ\+ಾರು ಸಂತರು 4ಾಗವhZದು ,
<ಾ\+ಾರು ಸಂ...ೆHಯ : ೋವeಗಳ ಕೂ1ಾ ಇದುV, ೋ Sಾ‹ ಆಯು7. ಹOಾ7ರು ಮಂ
ಸಂತರು ಸತು . ಇಂ +ಾ ಾಂ ಪ Gಾನ ಮಂK ಾPLಾVಗ ಅವರ ಸಮು@ಖದ :gೕ ಇದು
ನUೕತು. ಹOಾ7ರು ಮಂ ಸಂತರು ಸತು , ನೂ+ಾರು ೋವeಗಳನು8 ಗುಂUಟುm ೊಂದು ,
ಆವK7ನ ನ ಕರ`ಾK ಮಹ+ಾಜ ಅಂOಾ ಒಬwರು ಇದು , ಾ ಯ : ಇರತಕRಂತವರು ಮ0ಾ
ತಪZ„ಗಳ , ಅವರನ8 ನ1ೆLಾಡುವ Lೇವರು ಅಂOಾ ಕ Oಾ+ೆ. Lೆಹ ಯ ನಮ@ ೆ ೆ ಆ ಾಗ
ಅವರ ಷHರು ಬOಾ ಇOಾ +ೆ. ನ€ ಪeಣH ಅದು. ಕರ`ಾK ಮ0ಾ+ಾಜ ಅಂOಾ ಇದು ,
ಅವರು 0ೇBದು . ಬಹುOೇಕ 'ಮ ೆ3ಾ: hಂ ಅಥ ಆಗOೆ7 ಅಂOಾ ಾನು 4ಾ\ ೕ'. ಅವರು
0ೇBದು "ಸಂOೋ ಾOೋ ಬೂ‡ ಬಹ ಾ, ಹ€ /ಾŒ ಕ‹ LೇOೆ 0ೈಂ, 3ೇn‡
NC: 2024:KHC:44930
9 ೊ•ೕ ೆ ೋವಧn ಾ, ೋಹOಾHn 0ೈ, /ಾŽ ನhಕ‹ ಸಕOೆ, ಭಗ6ಾ‡ • /ಾŒ
ನhಕ‹ ಸಕOಾ" ಇಂ +ಾ ಾಂ ೆ sಾಪ ೊಟು ತು/ಾ•+ಾ ಕು• W ೋ`ಾಷmQ ೆ ‡
ಅಂ~ 0ೋ ಾ. ಏ‹ ಾ ' ನ : ಸಂಜಯ ಾಂ ಸK7ದುV ೋ`ಾಷmQ, ಇಂ +ಾ ಾಂ ೆ
ಗುಂUಟುm ೊಂ ದುV ೋ`ಾಷmQ, +ಾಹು• ಾಂ Sಾಂ' ¨ÁèµïÖ ನ : ಸK7ದುV
ೋ`ಾಷmQ, ಅ3ಾ:.. +ಾ9ೕವ ಾಂ , +ಾ9ೕವ ಾಂ Sಾಂ' ¨ÁèµïÖ ನ : ಸK7ದುV
ೋ`ಾಷmQ. ಮ0ಾಪeರುಷರ sಾಪ 0ೇPರOೆ7 ಅಂOಾ ೋU, ಅವರು 0ೇBದು
ೋ`ಾಷmQ ೆ ‡ h ತು/ಾ•+ಾ ಕು• ಾ ಅಂOಾ 0ೋ ಾ CAvÉíý, ಇದು ಮ0ಾತ@ರ
sಾಪ, ಭಗವಂತನ Kೕ/ಾ ನ, ಮ0ಾತ@ರ sಾಪ ಇದ ಾ8 Qೕ 'ಲ: ೆR <ಾಧH6ೇ ಇಲ:
ಅಂತ Sಾಷಣ /ಾUರುOಾ7+ೆ.
ಕುಮ ಾ Oಾಲೂಕ ಮತು7 ಉತ7ರ ಕನ8ಡ 93ೆ: ಾದHಂತ hಂದೂ 0ಾಗೂ ಮುZ:ಂ
ಧಮ ದವರ ೋಮು <ೌ0ಾಧ Oೆ ೆ ಧ ೆR /ಾಡುವ ಮತು7 ಧಮ -ಧಮ ಗಳ ನಡು6ೆ ಮತು7
\\ಧ 'ಗುಂಪeಗಳ ನಡು6ೆ Lೆ„ೕಷವನು8ಂಟು /ಾಡುವ <ೌ0ಾದ Oೆ ೆ Sಾಧಕ6ಾಗುವ
ಉLೆVೕಶ ಂದ 0ಾಗೂ LೊಂW /ಾUಸುವ ಉLೆVೕಶ ಂದ ಮುZ:ಂ ಧಮ ದವರ \ರುದ" hಂದೂ
ಧಮ ದವ ೆ ಪ Šೋದ ೆ /ಾU ೋಮು <ೌ0ಾಧ Oೆ ೆ ಧ ೆR ಆಗಲು ಜನರನು8
`ೆ ೕ+ೆ,ZರುOಾ7+ೆ. ಈ ಬ ೆy ೕ ಅನಂತಕು/ಾರ 0ೆಗ1ೆ. ಸಂಸದರು ೆನ+ಾ 3ೋಕಸ4ಾ 5ೇತ
6ಾಸ : ರ , ಉತ7ರ ಕನ8ಡ 93ೆ: ರವರ \ರುದ" ಸರ ಾರದ ಪರ6ಾP ಕಲಂ : 153-153(ಎ)-
505(2) ಐ.,.Z ಪ ಾರ ನನ8 ದೂರು ಇರುತ7Lೆ.
vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹
¸À»/-
ಮಂಜು ಾಥ ೌಡರ ,.ಎ .ಐ [ ಾ&ಸೂ]
ಕುಮ ಾ ೕಸ ಾ ೆ
F UÀtQÃPÀÈvÀ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ಾಂಕ 13-01-2024 gÀAzÀÄ 22.00 UÀAmÉUÉ -
PÀĪÀÄmÁ ¥Éưøï oïuÉAiÀÄ°è ¹éÃPÀj¹PÉÆAqÀÄ oÁuÁ V°£Áß £ÀA§gï -
07/2024 PÀ®A. 153-153(J)-505(2) IPC £ÉÃzÀgÀAvÉ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt
zÁR°¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
In the entire complaint, the allegation is that the petitioner has
indulged in erection of temporary podium to hoist the Bhagwa
NC: 2024:KHC:44930
Dhwaj and has spoken ill about other religion. The complaint
appears to be grossly glorified for the offences. The crux of the
allegation is erection of Bhagwa Dhwaj on the day of the
installation of Shri Ram Lalla statue at Ayodhya. The offences
are the ones punishable under Sections 153, 153A and 505(2)
of the IPC. They read as follows:
"153. Wantonly giving provocation with intent to
cause riot--if rioting be committed--if not committed.--
Whoever malignantly, or wantonly, by doing anything
which is illegal, gives provocation to any person
intending or knowing it to be likely that such
provocation will cause the offence of rioting to be
committed, shall, if the offence of rioting be committed
in consequence of such provocation, be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to one year, or with fine, or with both; and if the
offence of rioting be not committed, with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to six
months, or with fine, or with both.
153A. Promoting enmity between different
groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth,
residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to
maintenance of harmony.--(1) Whoever--
(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by
signs or by visible representations or otherwise,
promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of
religion, race, place of birth, residence, language,
caste or community or any other ground
whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity,
hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial,
language or regional groups or castes or
communities, or
(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the
maintenance of harmony between different religious,
racial, language or regional groups or castes or
NC: 2024:KHC:44930
communities, and which disturbs or is likely to
disturb the public tranquillity, [or]
(c) organizes any exercise, movement, drill or
other similar activity intending that the participants
in such activity shall use or be trained to use
criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely
that the participants in such activity will use or be
trained to use criminal force or violence, or
participates in such activity intending to use or be
trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing
it to be likely that the participants in such activity
will use or be trained to use criminal force or
violence, against any religious, racial, language or
regional group or caste or community and such
activity for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely
to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity
amongst members of such religious, racial, language
or regional group or caste or community, shall be
punished with imprisonment which may extend to
three years, or with fine, or with both.
(2) Offence committed in place of worship, etc.--
Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section
(1) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged
in the performance of religious worship or religious
ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which
may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.
... ... ...
505(2). Statements creating or promoting
enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes.--Whoever
makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report
containing rumour or alarming news with intent to
create or promote, or which is likely to create or
promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth,
residence, language, caste or community or any other
ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will
between different religious, racial, language or regional
groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with
imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with
fine, or with both."
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44930
Interpretation of this provision need not detain this Court for
long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the case
of JAVED AHMAD HAJAM V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA1
has held as follows:
".... .... ....
Consideration of submissions
6. The only offence alleged against the appellant is
the one punishable under Section 153-A IPC. Section 153-
A IPC, as it exists with effect from 4-9-1969, reads thus:
"153-A. Promoting enmity between
different groups on grounds of religion, race,
place of birth, residence, language, etc. and
doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of
harmony.--(1) Whoever--
(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by
signs or by visible representations or otherwise,
promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of
religion, race, place of birth, residence, language,
caste or community or any other ground whatsoever,
disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will
between different religious, racial, language or
regional groups or castes or communities, or
(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to
the maintenance of harmony between different
religious, racial, language or regional groups or
castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely
to disturb the public tranquillity,
(c) organises any exercise, movement, drill
or other similar activity intending that the
participants in such activity shall use or be trained to
use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be
likely that the participants in such activity will use or
be trained to use criminal force or violence, or
participates in such activity intending to use or be
(2024) 4 SCC 156
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44930
trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it
to be likely that the participants in such activity will
use or be trained to use criminal force or violence,
against any religious, racial, language or regional
group or caste or community and such activity, for
any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause
fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst
members of such religious, racial, language or
regional group or caste or community,
shall be punished with imprisonment which
may extend to three years, or with fine, or with
both.
Offence committed in place of worship,
etc.--(2) Whoever commits an offence specified in
sub-section (1) in any place of worship or in any
assembly engaged in the performance of religious
worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished
with imprisonment which may extend to five years
and shall also be liable to fine."
In this case, clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section
153-AIPC is admittedly not attracted.
7. In Manzar Sayeed Khan [Manzar Sayeed Khan v.
State of Maharashtra, (2007) 5 SCC 1 : (2007) 2 SCC
(Cri) 417] , while interpreting Section 153-A, in para 16,
this Court held thus : (SCC p. 9)
"16. Section 153-AIPC, as extracted
hereinabove, covers a case where a person by
words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by
visible representations or otherwise, promotes or
attempts to promote, disharmony or feelings of
enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious,
racial, language or regional groups or castes or
communities or acts prejudicial to the maintenance
of harmony or is likely to disturb the public
tranquillity. The gist of the offence is the intention
to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between
different classes of people. The intention to cause
disorder or incite the people to violence is the sine
qua non of the offence under Section 153-AIPC and
the prosecution has to prove prima facie the
existence of mens rea on the part of the accused.
The intention has to be judged primarily by the
language of the book and the circumstances in
which the book was written and published. The
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44930
matter complained of within the ambit of Section
153-A must be read as a whole. One cannot rely on
strongly worded and isolated passages for proving
the charge nor indeed can one take a sentence here
and a sentence there and connect them by a
meticulous process of inferential reasoning."
(emphasis supplied)
8. This Court in Manzar Sayeed Khan [Manzar
Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 5 SCC 1 :
(2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 417] referred to the view taken by
Vivian Bose, J., as a Judge of the erstwhile Nagpur High
Court in Bhagwati Charan Shukla v. Provincial Govt.
[Bhagwati Charan Shukla v. Provincial Govt., 1946 SCC
OnLine MP 5 : AIR 1947 Nag 1] A Division Bench of the
High Court dealt with the offence of sedition under
Section 124-AIPC and Section 4(1) of the Press
(Emergency Powers) Act, 1931. The issue was whether a
particular article in the press tends, directly or indirectly,
to bring hatred or contempt to the Government
established in law. This Court has approved this view in
its decision in Ramesh v. Union of India [Ramesh v. Union
of India, (1988) 1 SCC 668 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 266] . In the
said case, this Court dealt with the issue of applicability of
Section 153-AIPC. In para 13, it was held thus : (Ramesh
case [Ramesh v. Union of India, (1988) 1 SCC 668 : 1988
SCC (Cri) 266] , SCC p. 676)
"13. ... the effect of the words must be judged
from the standards of reasonable, strong-minded,
firm and courageous men, and not those of weak and
vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in
every hostile point of view. ... It is the standard of
ordinary reasonable man or as they say in English law
'the man on the top of a Clapham omnibus'.
(Bhagwati Charan Shukla case [Bhagwati Charan
Shukla v. Provincial Govt., 1946 SCC OnLine MP 5 :
AIR 1947 Nag 1] , SCC OnLine MP para 67)"
(emphasis supplied)
Therefore, the yardstick laid down by Vivian Bose,
J., will have to be applied while judging the effect of the
words, spoken or written, in the context of Section 153-
AIPC.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44930
9. We may also make a useful reference to a
decision of this Court in Patricia Mukhim v. State of
Meghalaya [Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya,
(2021) 15 SCC 35] . Paras 8 to 10 of the said decision
read thus : (SCC pp. 41-43)
"8. 'It is of utmost importance to keep all
speech free in order for the truth to emerge and have
a civil society.'-- Thomas Jefferson. Freedom of
speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a)
of the Constitution is a very valuable fundamental
right. However, the right is not absolute. Reasonable
restrictions can be placed on the right of free speech
and expression in the interest of sovereignty and
integrity of India, security of the State, friendly
relations with foreign States, public order, decency or
morality or in relation to contempt of Court,
defamation or incitement to an offence. Speech crime
is punishable under Section 153-AIPC. Promotion of
enmity between different groups on grounds of
religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc.
and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony
is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to
three years or with fine or with both under Section
153-A. As we are called upon to decide whether a
prima facie case is made out against the appellant for
committing offences under Sections 153-A and
505(1)(c), it is relevant to reproduce the provisions
which are as follows:
***
9. Only where the written or spoken words
have the tendency of creating public disorder or
disturbance of law and order or affecting public
tranquillity, the law needs to step in to prevent such
an activity. The intention to cause disorder or incite
people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence
under Section 153-AIPC and the prosecution has to
prove the existence of mens rea in order to succeed.
[Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995) 3 SCC 214
: 1995 SCC (Cri) 432]
10. The gist of the offence under Section 153-
AIPC is the intention to promote feelings of enmity or
hatred between different classes of people. The
intention has to be judged primarily by the language
of the piece of writing and the circumstances in which
it was written and published. The matter complained
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44930
of within the ambit of Section 153-A must be read as
a whole. One cannot rely on strongly worded and
isolated passages for proving the charge nor indeed
can one take a sentence here and a sentence there
and connect them by a meticulous process of
inferential reasoning [Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of
Maharashtra, (2007) 5 SCC 1 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri)
417] ."
(emphasis in original and supplied)
10. Now, coming back to Section 153-A, clause (a)
of sub-section (1) of Section 153-AIPC is attracted when
by words, either spoken or written or by signs or by
visible representations or otherwise, an attempt is made
to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill
will between different religious, racial, language or
regional groups or castes or communities. The promotion
of disharmony, enmity, hatred or ill will must be on the
grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence,
language, caste, community or any other analogous
grounds. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 153-
AIPC will apply only when an act is committed which is
prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between
different religious, racial, language or regional groups or
castes or communities and which disturbs or is likely to
disturb the public tranquillity.
11. Now, coming to the words used by the
appellant on his WhatsApp status, we may note here that
the first statement is that August 5 is a Black Day for
Jammu and Kashmir. 5-8-2019 is the day on which Article
370 of the Constitution of India was abrogated, and two
separate Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir were
formed. Further, the appellant has posted that "Article
370 was abrogated, we are not happy". On a plain
reading, the appellant intended to criticise the action of
the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India.
He has expressed unhappiness over the said act of
abrogation. The aforesaid words do not refer to any
religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or
community. It is a simple protest by the appellant against
the decision to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution of
India and the further steps taken based on that decision.
The Constitution of India, under Article 19(1)(a),
guarantees freedom of speech and expression. Under the
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44930
said guarantee, every citizen has the right to offer
criticism of the action of abrogation of Article 370 or, for
that matter, every decision of the State. He has the right
to say he is unhappy with any decision of the State.
12. In Manzar Sayeed Khan [Manzar Sayeed Khan
v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 5 SCC 1 : (2007) 2 SCC
(Cri) 417] , this Court has read "intention" as an essential
ingredient of the said offence. The alleged objectionable
words or expressions used by the appellant, on its plain
reading, cannot promote disharmony or feelings of
enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious,
racial, language or regional groups or castes or
communities. The WhatsApp status of the appellant has a
photograph of two barbed wires, below which it is
mentioned that "AUGUST 5 -- BLACK DAY -- JAMMU &
KASHMIR". This is an expression of his individual view and
his reaction to the abrogation of Article 370 of the
Constitution of India. It does not reflect any intention to
do something which is prohibited under Section 153-A. At
best, it is a protest, which is a part of his freedom of
speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a).
13. Every citizen of India has a right to be critical
of the action of abrogation of Article 370 and the change
of status of Jammu and Kashmir. Describing the day the
abrogation happened as a "Black Day" is an expression of
protest and anguish. If every criticism or protest of the
actions of the State is to be held as an offence under
Section 153-A, democracy, which is an essential feature
of the Constitution of India, will not survive.
14. The right to dissent in a legitimate and lawful
manner is an integral part of the rights guaranteed under
Article 19(1)(a). Every individual must respect the right of
others to dissent. An opportunity to peacefully protest
against the decisions of the Government is an essential
part of democracy. The right to dissent in a lawful manner
must be treated as a part of the right to lead a dignified
and meaningful life guaranteed by Article 21. But the
protest or dissent must be within four corners of the
modes permissible in a democratic set up. It is subject to
reasonable restrictions imposed in accordance with clause
(2) of Article 19. In the present case, the appellant has
not at all crossed the line."
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44930
15. The High Court has held [Javed Ahmed Hajam
v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 819] that
the possibility of stirring up the emotions of a group of
people cannot be ruled out. The appellant's college
teachers, students, and parents were allegedly members
of the WhatsApp group. As held by Vivian Bose, J., the
effect of the words used by the appellant on his WhatsApp
status will have to be judged from the standards of
reasonable women and men. We cannot apply the
standards of people with weak and vacillating minds. Our
country has been a democratic republic for more than 75
years. The people of our country know the importance of
democratic values. Therefore, it is not possible to
conclude that the words will promote disharmony or
feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different
religious groups. The test to be applied is not the effect of
the words on some individuals with weak minds or who
see a danger in every hostile point of view. The test is of
the general impact of the utterances on reasonable people
who are significant in numbers. Merely because a few
individuals may develop hatred or ill will, it will not be
sufficient to attract clause (a) of sub-section (1) of
Section 153-AIPC.
16. As regards the picture containing "Chand" and
below that the words "14th August-Happy Independence
Day Pakistan", we are of the view that it will not attract
clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 153-AIPC. Every
citizen has the right to extend good wishes to the citizens
of the other countries on their respective Independence
Days. If a citizen of India extends good wishes to the
citizens of Pakistan on 14th August, which is their
Independence Day, there is nothing wrong with it. It is a
gesture of goodwill. In such a case, it cannot be said that
such acts will tend to create disharmony or feelings of
enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious
groups. Motives cannot be attributed to the appellant only
because he belongs to a particular religion."
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44930
Later, the Apex Court in the case of SHIV PRASAD SEMWAL
V. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND,2 has held as follows:
".... .... ....
21. It may be noted that the entire case as set out
in the impugned FIR is based on the allegation that the
Facebook news post uploaded by one journalist Mr
Gunanand Jakhmola was caused to be published on
Parvatjan news portal being operated by the appellant.
22. Thus, essentially, we are required to examine
whether the contents of the news report constitute any
cognizable offence so as to justify the investigation into
the allegations made in the FIR against the appellant.
23. For the sake of ready reference, the contents
of the disputed news article are reproduced hereinbelow:
"Gunanand Jakhmola
17-3-2020 at 30.05
Trivender Uncle what amazing things you are
doing?
Uncle you are laying foundation stone of Art
Gallery which is going to construct by acquiring
government land.
Uncle you are associating the mafias who are
violating the decisions of Modi Government.
Don't trap yourself with mafias, have you
forgot the problems arisen out of marriage of Gupta
brother's.
Uncle you were not like this, what happened
to you? Was the troubles arisen out of marriage of
Gupta Brothers was not enough that you are now
2024 SCC OnLine SC 322
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44930
going to laying foundation stone of the Art Gallery
which is going to construct by acquiring government
land. Just think over it, or take report from LIU and
other agencies about this Art Gallery which is going
to construct on the acquired government land. This
is a government land which is dismantled by mafias
and your officers. Uncle you are innocent, anybody
can use you. Advisers and officers surrounding you
they are cunning.
This cunning persons have brought you
forward against the decisions of Modi Government.
Uncle let I inform you for your knowledge that
Modi Government means your honour has given
sanction to planning for Singtali Project near
Rishikesh. This project will reduce the distance
between Kumau and Garhwal and also it will arrange
sources of employment in mountains. World Bank is
also giving money, but the program of Mafias in
which you are going to participate on 20 March, that
is an enemy of mountains. It has no concern with
the well being of mountains. It is against the
proposed project of Modi Government and your
officers and advisers are in collusion with that.
Please inquire it and then only you go.
Note : Kindly see the invitation card given by
mafias."
24. As per the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of
the State, after investigation, two substantive offences
were retained by the investigating officer against the
appellant, which are Sections 153-A and 504 read with
Sections 34 and 120-BIPC.
25. From a bare reading of the language of
Section 153-AIPC, it is clear that in order to constitute
such offence, the prosecution must come out with a case
that the words "spoken" or "written" attributed to the
accused, created enmity or bad blood between different
groups on the ground of religion, race, place of birth,
residence, language, etc. or that the acts so alleged were
prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony.
26. Upon careful perusal of the offending news
article, reproduced (supra), it is crystal clear that there is
no reference to any group or groups of people in the said
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44930
article. The publication focuses totally on the
complainant imputing that he had encroached upon
public land where the foundation stone laying ceremony
was proposed at the hands of Hon'ble Chief Minister of
Uttarakhand.
27. Apparently, the post was aimed at frustrating
the proposed foundation stone laying ceremony on the
land, of which the complainant claims to be the true
owner. The post also imputes that the person who was
planning the foundation stone ceremony was an enemy
of mountains and had no concern with the well-being of
the mountains.
28. The learned Standing Counsel for the State
tried to draw much water from these lines alleging that
this portion of the post tends to create a sense of enmity
and disharmony amongst people of hill community and
the people of plains. However, the interpretation sought
to be given to these words is far-fetched and
unconvincing. The lines referred to supra only refer to
the complainant, imputing that his activities are
prejudicial to the hills. These words have no connection
whatsoever with a group or groups of people or
communities. Hence, the foundational facts essential to
constitute the offence under Section 153-AIPC are totally
lacking from the allegations as set out in the FIR."
If the facts obtaining in the case at hand are considered on the
touchstone of what is held by the Apex Court in the afore-
quoted judgments, the unmistakable inference would be,
obliteration of the crime against the petitioners. What is
alleged against the petitioners is, distribution of turmeric laced
sacred rice colloquially known as 'akshathe' and hoisting of
Bhagawad dwaja. These two acts would not meet the
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44930
ingredients of the offences so alleged against the petitioners, as
elucidated by the Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgments.
9. Section 505 makes an offence against a person who
makes a statement which results in inducing or conducting
pubic mischief. There is no allegation that the incident alleged
has caused public mischief or any rift.
10. Therefore, it is a glorified complaint without content.
The Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA v.
BHAJAN LAL3, has held as follows:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter
XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court
in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such
power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such
power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in their
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44930
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first
information report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable
offence, justifying an investigation by police officers
under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order
of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of
the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made
in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission of
any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a
non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by
a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR
or complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that there
is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the
concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in
the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge."
(Emphasis supplied)
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44930
11. In the light of the ingredients of the offences not
being met, permitting further proceedings would become an
abuse of process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed; and
ii) The FIR registered by Kumta Police Station in Crime
No.7/2024 pending on the file of the Principal Civil
Judge (Jr. Dn.) and J.M.F.C., Kumta, qua the
petitioner, stands quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
KG
