Karnataka High Court

Anantkumar Dattatreya Hegde vs State Of Karnataka on 22 January, 2025

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

Reserved on : 12.12.2024
Pronounced on : 22.01.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2502 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

ANANTKUMAR DATTATREYA HEGDE
S/O DATTATREYA HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT,
RESIDING AT NO. 17,
KHB COLONY, SIRSI,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 402.

... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BHATKAL RURAL POLICE STATION,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY
HIGH COURT SPP,
BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. MANJUNATHA M. GONDA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
2

PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
HEBLE VILLAGE PANCHAYATH,
RESIDING AT KUNTAWANI HADUGOLLI
BHATKAL TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;
R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO 1) QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.0032/2024
REGISTERED BY THE BHATKAL RURAL POLICE STATION ON
PENDING FILE OF THE COURT OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND
JMFC, BHATKAL, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT AGAINST THE
PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 447, 153A, 149 OF IPC
AND SEC. 3, 4, 5 OF KARNATAKA OPEN PLACE DISFIGUREMENT
ACT, 1951 AND 1981 PRODUCED HEREWITH AS DOCUMENT NO.1;
2) ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT
AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF'S AS THIS HONBLE COURT MAY
DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 12.12.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question

registration of a crime in Crime No.32 of 2024 registered for

offences punishable under Sections 143, 149, 153A, 447 of the IPC

and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Open Place Disfigurement

Act, 1951 & 1981 ('the Act' for short) and pending before the

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Bhatkal, Uttara

Kannada District.

2. Heard Sri Pavana Chandra Shetty, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned

Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The petitioner is accused No.16 and respondent No.2 is the

complainant/Panchayat Development Officer ('PDO'). A complaint

comes to be registered on 05-03-2024 alleging that the petitioner

along with others on 04-03-2024 at 1.00 p.m. were wanting to
4

hoist Bhagwan Hanuman Dhwaj and install a particular board of

Veera Savarkar at Tenginagundi Beach, Bhatkal. Therefore, the 2nd

respondent/PDO registers the complaint against 21 accused all said

to be Hindu Karyakarthas for the afore-quoted offences. The

registration of crime has driven the petitioner to this Court in the

subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri Pavana

Chandra Shetty would vehemently contend that hoisting of

Bhagwan Hanuman Dhwaj or flag of Hanuman or even a picture of

Veera Savarkar near a beach would not amount to an offence under

Sections 447 and 153A of the IPC and even the offences under the

Act. He would submit that identical issue is considered qua the

same petitioner in Criminal Petition No.1561 of 2024 disposed

on 7-11-2024.

5. Per contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor

would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the crime

is registered as the acts of the petitioner have the propensity to
5

incite disharmony amongst two factions. Therefore, investigation

must be permitted and accordingly, seeks dismissal of the petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the

material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. They lie in a

narrow compass. As contended by the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner qua the same petitioner, alleging same offences,

this Court in the aforesaid petition has passed the following order:

".... .... ....

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:.
***********
6

<ಾ+ಾಂ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 ೕ+ಾ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
7

ಜನ@ದ :ಯೂ ಪeನಃ ಅವನು ಇವOೆ7ೕ <ಾಯSೇಕು. 0ೊ1ೆದ 0ೊ1ೆತ hೕPರSೇಕು. <ೋ ಈ
'Tmನ : ನಮ@ 0ೊ1ೆತ \+ೋ ಗB ೆ ಆಗSೇಕು ಾಂ ೆ ೕ ನಮ@ \+ೋ ಅ3ಾ:
ಾಂ ೆ ೕZ ೆ ನಮ@ನ8 \+ೋಧ /ಾ1ೋ ೆ`ಾHZT ೇ ಇ3ಾ:. ನಮ@ \+ೋ ಗಳ ನಮ@
ತ3ೆಯ : ಹುಚು‚ ಹುಳವನು8 WಡOಾರಲ: hಂದುತƒದ \+ೋ ಹುಳಗಳ , ಸ ಾತನದ \+ೋ
ಹುಳಗಳ . ಇದ ೆ83ಾ: /ಾOಾ1ಾ7ರ3ಾ: ಅವರು ನಮ@ \+ೋ ಗಳ ಈ ಾಂ ೆ ೕ ನಮ@
\+ೋ ಅಲ:6ೇ ಅ3ಾ:. +ಾಜ ಾರಣ ೊRೕಸRರ ಅದು ಇದು ವದ+ಾಡ7 ಇರಕRಂತದುV. ನ„ಮ
\+ೋ 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 <ಾƒ4ಾ\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'ƒ ೇಷ‡ ಬಂದು +ಾಮ ಜನ@ಭೂQ ಇ'ƒ ೇ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'ƒ ೇಷ‡ ಬಂ 3ಾ: ಅಂದರು ಆxೕ3ೆ ಇ'ƒ ೇ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
ತಪZƒಗಳ , 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
8

0ೇBದು "ಸಂOೋ ಾOೋ ಬೂ‡ ಬಹ ಾ, ಹ„ /ಾŒ ಕ‹ LೇOೆ 0ೈಂ, 3ೇn‡
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 ಾ CAvÉíÃ½, ಇದು ಮ0ಾತ@ರ
sಾಪ, ಭಗವಂತನ Kೕ/ಾ ನ, ಮ0ಾತ@ರ sಾಪ ಇದ ಾ8 Qೕ 'ಲ: ೆR <ಾಧH6ೇ ಇ•ಲ
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 Lೆƒೕಷವನು8ಂಟು /ಾ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 -
PÀÄªÀÄmÁ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï oïuÉAiÀÄ°è ¹éÃPÀj¹PÉÆAqÀÄ oÁuÁ V°£Áß £ÀA§gï - 07/2024
PÀ®A. 153-153(J)-505(2) IPC £ÉÃzÀgÀAvÉ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR°¹gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É.

In the entire complaint, the allegation is that the
petitioner has indulged in erection of temporary podium to hoist
the Bhagwa 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
9

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
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
10

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."

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:

".... .... ....

1
(2024) 4 SCC 156
11

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 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.
12

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 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
13

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.

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 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
14

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 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)
15

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."

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
16

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."

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.

2
2024 SCC OnLine SC 322
17

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
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
18

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 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
19

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 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

3
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
20

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 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.
21

(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)"

(Emphasis added)

The other offence that did not fall for consideration in the said case

is the offence under Section 447 of the IPC and aforementioned

provisions under the Act. Therefore, it becomes necessary to notice

the complaint. The complaint reads as follows:

"jUÉ,

¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ
¨sÀlÌ¼À UÁæ«ÄÃt ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï oÁuÉ.

EAzÀ,

²æÃ ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ JªÀiï UÉÆAqÀ
¥ÁæAiÀÄ-46 ªÀµÀð ªÀÈwÛ-¦.r.N ºÉ¨Éî UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ
ªÁ¸À-PÀÄAlªÁtÂ ºÁqÀÄªÀ½î ¨sÀlÌ¼À
ªÉÆ¨ÉÊ¯ï £ÀA: 9008796729

ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,

«µÀAiÀÄ: D¥Á¢vÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR°¹ PÁ£ÀÆ¤£ÀAvÉ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ.

****
F ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ£ÀågÀªÀgÀ°è «£ÀAw¹PÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀÅzÉÃ£ÉAzÀgÉ,
£Á£ÀÄ PÀ¼ÉzÀ 12 dÄ¯ÉÊ 2023 jAzÀ ºÉ¨Éî UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄwAiÀÄ°è ¦.r.N. DV PÀvÀðªÀå
¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 21/01/2024 gÀAzÀÄ vÉAV£ÀUÀÄAr §AzÀj£À°è ºÉ¨Éî ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄw
ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉÃ C£À¢üÃPÀÈvÀªÁV zsÀédzÀ PÀmÉÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀnÖzÀÄÝ EzÀ£ÀÄß
¢£ÁAPÀ: 27/01/2024 gÀAzÀÄ vÉgÀÄªÀÅUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÁUÀ gÀPÀëuÉ PÉÆÃj ¨sÀl s Ì¼À UÁæ«ÄÃt ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï
oÁuÉUÉ Cfð ¤Ãr ¸À¢æ zsÀédzÀ PÀmÉÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉgÀÄªÀÅUÉÆ½¹zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
22

CzÀgÀ £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ: 30/01/2024 gÀAzÀÄ ¥ÀÄ£À: CzÉÃ eÁUÀzÀ°è 1)UÉÆÃ«AzÀ
dmÁÖ £ÁAiÀÄÌ, ¸Á|| ºÀ£ÀÄªÀiÁ£À £ÀUÀgÀ, ¨sÀlÌ¼À, 2) ²æÃPÁAvÀ £ÁgÁAiÀÄt £ÁAiÀÄÌ, ¸Á|| D¸ÀgÀPÉÃj,
¨sÀlÌ¼À 3) gÁWÀªÉÃAzÀæ £ÁAiÀÄÌ, ¸Á|| ªÀÄÄlÖ½î, ¨sÀlÌ¼À 4) ²æÃ¤ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁ¸ÀÛ¥Àà £ÁAiÀÄÌ, ¸Á||
ºÀ£ÀÄªÀiÁ£À £ÀUÀgÀ, ¨sÀlÌ¼À 5) «eÉÃvÀ gÁzsÁPÀÈµÀÚ ±ÉnÖ, ¸Á|| ºÉvÁðgÀ, ºÉ§¼É, ¨sÀlÌ¼À 6) ¸ÀÄ¨ÁæAiÀÄ
£ÁUÀ¥Àà zÉÃªÁrUÀ, ¸Á|| ¨Á¼É»vÀÄè, ºÉ§¼É, ¨sÀlÌ¼À 7) vÀÄ¼À¹zÁ¸À ¸ÀÄ¨Áâ £ÁAiÀÄÌ, ¸Á|| ¨É¼ÀPÉ,
¨sÀlÌ¼À 8) UÀuÉÃ±À ªÉÆUÉÃgÀ, ¸Á|| vÉAV£ÀUÀÄAr, ¨sÀlÌ¼À 9) PÉÃ±ÀªÀ zÀÄUÀð¥Àà ªÉÆUÉÃgÀ, ¸Á||
vÉAV£ÀUÀÄAr, ¨sÀlÌ¼À 10) ªÉAPÀmÉÃ±À £ÁAiÀÄÌ, ¸Á|| ºÉ§¼É, ¨sÀlÌ¼À 11) gÁªÀiÁ £ÁAiÀÄÌ, ¸Á|| ºÉ§¼É,
¨sÀlÌ¼À 12) ¸ÀzÁ£ÀAzÀ ªÉÆUÉÃgÀ, ¸Á|| vÉAV£ÀUÀÄAr, ¨sÀlÌ¼À 13) PÀÄ¥ÀàAiÀÄå UÉÆAqÀ, ¸Á||
vÉAV£ÀUÀÄAr, ¨sÀlÌ¼À 14) zÀAiÀiÁ£ÀAzÀ £ÁAiÀÄÌ ¸Á|| vÉAV£ÀUÀÄAr, ¨sÀlÌ¼À EªÀgÀÄ ºÉ¨îÉ
¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄw¬ÄAzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉÃ C£À¢üÃPÀÈvÀªÁV zsÀédzÀ PÀmÉÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
PÀnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¢£ÁAPÀ: 04/03/2024 gÀAzÀÄ 13-00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁjUÉ D¥Á¢vÀgÁzÀ 1) ¸ÀÄgÉÃ±À
£ÁAiÀÄÌ ¸Á|| gÀWÀÄ£ÁxÀ gÀ¸ÉÛ, ªÀÄÄtÄÌ½ ¨sÀlÌ¼À 2) C£ÀAvÀPÀÄªÀiÁgÀ ºÉUÀqÉ. ¸ÀA¸ÀzÀgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀ PÀ£ÀßqÀ
f¯Éè PÁgÀªÁgÀ. EªÀgÀÄ CPÀæªÀÄ UÀÄA¥À£ÀÄß PÀnÖPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ºÉ¨Éî ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ d«ÄÃ¤£À°è
C£À¢üÃPÀÈvÀ PÀmÉÖ PÀnÖgÀÄªÀ ¸ÀÜ¼ÀzÀ ¸ÀÄvÀÛ ªÀÄÄvÀÛ°£À°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄªÀ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀ zsÀªÀÄð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄvÀ
««zsÀ UÀÄA¥ÀÄUÀ¼À £ÀqÀÄªÉ zÉéÃµÀªÀ£ÀÄß GvÉÛÃf¹ ¸ËºÁzsÀðvÉ PÀzÀr ¥ÀÆªÀðUÀæºÀ ¦ÃrvÀ PÀÈvÀåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
ªÀiÁrzÀÝ®èzÉÃ EzÉÃ ªÉÃ¼ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸À¢æ ¸ÀÜ¼ÀzÀ°è ºÉ¨Éî ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄw¬ÄAzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉ
¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉÃ vÉAV£ÀUÀÄAr ©ÃZï JAzÀÄ PÀgÉAiÀÄ®ànÖgÀÄªÀ eÁUÀPÉÌ ¸À¢æ C¥Á¢vÀgÀÄ DPÀæªÀÄªÁV
¤«Äð¹zÀ C£À¢üÃPÀÈvÀ PÀmÉÖUÉ «ÃgÀ ¸ÁªÀgÀPÀgï JAzÀÄ £ÁªÀÄ¥sÀ®PÀ C¼ÀªÀr¹ zsÀéd¸ÀÜA¨sÀPÉÌ ¨sÀUÀªÁ zsÀéd
C¼ÀªÀr¹ ¸ÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÄvÀÛ°£À ¥ÀæzÉÃ±ÀzÀ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀ ±ÁAw PÀzÀrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. C¥Á¢vÀgÁzÀ 1) ¢Ã¥ÀPÀ
£ÁAiÀÄÌ ¸Á|| ºÀÄgÀ½¸Á® ¨sÀlÌ¼À 2) ²æÃPÁAvÀ £ÁAiÀÄÌ ¸Á|| D¸ÀgÀPÉÃj ¨sÀlÌ¼À 3) ¸ÀÄ¨ÁæAiÀÄ zÉÃªÁrUÀ
¸Á|| ¨Á¼É»vÀÄè ¨sÀlÌ¼À 4) ¥ÁªÀðw J¸ï.£ÁAiÀÄÌ ¸Á|| vÉAV£ÀUÀÄAr ¨sÀlÌ¼À 5) UÀuÉÃ±À ªÉÆUÉÃgï ¸Á||
vÉAV£ÀUÀÄAr ¨sÀlÌ¼À 6) PÉÃ±ÀªÀ ªÉÆUÉÃgï PÀQðªÀÄ£É ¸Á|| vÉAV£ÀUÀÄAr ¨sÀlÌ¼À 7) zÀAiÀiÁ£ÀAzÀ £ÁAiÀÄÌ
¸Á|| vÉAV£ÀUÀÄAr ¨sÀlÌ¼À 8) «eÉÃvÀ ±ÉÃnÖ ¸Á|| ºÉgÁÛgÀ ¨sÀlÌ¼À 9) ªÉAPÀmÉÃ±À £ÁAiÀÄÌ ¸Á|| ºÉÆ£ÉßUÀzÉÝ
¨sÀlÌ¼À 10) ZÀAzÀÄæ UÉÆAqÀ ¸Á|| M§â£ÀPÀÌ® ºÉ¨Éî ¨sÀlÌ¼À 11) ¸ÀzÁ£ÀAzÀ ªÉÆUÉÃgï ¸Á|| vÉAV£ÀUÀÄAr
¨sÀlÌ¼À 12) ²æÃªÀÄw PÀÄ¥ÀÄà UÉÆAqÀ ¸Á|| ªÀgÀPÉÆqÀÄè ¨sÀlÌ¼À 13) AiÉÆÃUÉÃ±À zÉÃªÀfÓ ªÉÆUÉÃgï ¸Á||
«ÄAaªÀÄ£É ºÉ¨Éî ¨sÀlÌ¼À ºÁUÀÆ E£ÀÆß EvÀgÀgÀ zÀÄµÉàçÃgÀuÉ¬ÄAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄwÃAiÀÄªÁV
CwÃ¸ÀÆPÀëöä ¥ÀæzÉÃ±ÀPÉÌ §AzÀÄ F PÀÈvÀå J¸ÀUÀ®Ä PÁgÀtÂÃPÀÈvÀªÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F PÀÈvÀå ªÀiÁrzÀ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ
C¥Á¢vÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR°¹ PÁ£ÀÆ¤£ÀAvÉ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆ¼Àî®Ä «£ÀAw. F WÀl£Á ¸ÀÜ¼ÀPÉÌ
£Á£ÀÄ ¨sÉÃn¤Ãr F «µÀAiÀÄzÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÉÄÃ¯Á¢üPÁjgÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ZÀað¹ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä
£À¤ßAzÀ «¼ÀA¨sÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹
¸ÀÜ¼À: ¨sÀlÌ¼À ¸À»/-"
¢£ÁAPÀ: 05/03/2024
(Emphasis added)

A perusal at the complaint would no where indicate that any

disfigurement of public place has happened or there is criminal
23

trespass into private property. Beach is a place open to public

where Bhagwan Hanuman Dhwaj was sought to be erected.

Permission would be necessary, but it does not amount to

disfigurement of public place. Therefore, the added two offences

also do not have any semblance of ingredients qua the facts. In

that light, I deem it appropriate to follow the order passed by this

Court, as quoted supra and obliterate the crime against the

petitioner.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

(ii) The FIR registered in Crime No.32 of 2024 by Bhatkal Rural Police Station and pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) & JMFC, Bhatkal, stands quashed qua the petitioner.

Sd/-

______________________ JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA bkp CT:MJ