Karnataka High Court
Sri Basanagouda R Patil Yatnal vs State Of Karnataka on 30 January, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:4448
CRL.P No. 10145 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10145 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI BASANAGOUDA R.PATIL (YATNAL)
S/O RAMANAGOUDA B.PATIL
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
OCC: MLA, VIJAYAPURA CONSTITUENCY
R/AT OLD IB, STATION ROAD
VIJAYAPURA - 586 101, KARNATAKA.
ALSO AT
R/AT SINDAGI ROAD MAHAL AINAPUR
AINAPUR, BIJAPUR KARNATAKA - 586 104.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VENKATESH P. DALWAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
Digitally signed
signed by
by
VISHAL
VISHAL NINGAPPA
NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
PATTIHAL
Location:
Location: High
Court
Court of
High
of Karnataka,
Karnataka,
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Dharwad
Dharwad Bench,
Bench,
Dharwad
Dharwad BY BANKAPURA POLICE STATION
HAVERI DISTRICT
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. B.G.DODDAMANI
POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR
BANKAPUR POLICE
SHIGGAON TALUK
HAVERI DISTRICT - 581 205
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:4448
CRL.P No. 10145 of 2024
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAGADEESHA B. N., A.S.P.P.)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS)
PRAYING TO QUASH FIR IN CR.NO.131/2023 REGISTERED BY
BANKAPURA P.S., PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED PRL.
CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, SHIGGAON HAVERI FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 505(2) OF IPC PRODUCED AT DOCUMENT
NO.1.
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
registration of a crime in Crime No.131/2023, for the offence
punishable under Section 505(2) of the IPC.
2. Heard Sri Venkatesh P. Dalwai, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri Jagadeesha B.N., learned
Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents - State.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
It is the case of the respondents - complainant that on
07.10.2023, at about 7.30 p.m., in Bankapur town, the
NC: 2025:KHC:4448
petitioner addressed a speech concerning Sanatana Dharma,
which according to the complainant, the petitioner had made
statement that those who hoist the flag of Pakistan, in Belgaum
are the grandchildren of Pakistanis. Based on the said incident,
comes the impugned complaint.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
Sri Venkatesh P. Dalwai, would contend that even if averments
in the complaint are construed to be true, would not become
offence under Section 505(2) of the IPC, as its ingredients do
not meet. He therefore, seeks quashment of the crime.
5. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would
refute the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner
to contend that the police have registered a suo motu crime
against the petitioner. The crime is now under investigation.
The speech made by the petitioner undoubtedly forms the
ingredients of Section 505(2) of the IPC. He would seek
dismissal of the petition.
NC: 2025:KHC:4448
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective
parties and have perused the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute and
requires no reiteration. The issue lies in a narrow compass.
Since the entire issue has sprung from the complaint, I deem it
appropriate to notice the complaint. It reads as follows:
"UÉ,
ಾನ ಎ ಐ ಾನೂನು ಮತು ಸುವ ವ ೆ
ಬಂ ಾಪ ರ ೕಸ ಾ ೆ.
ಾನ ೆ,
ಾನು ! " #ೊಡ%ಮ&, ಎ ಐ ತ&'ಾ ()ಾಗ, ವಯಸು, 52 ವಷ.,
ಉ#ೊ ೕಗ ಎ ಐ ಬಂ ಾಪ ರ ೕಸ ಾ ೆ, 0ೕ1ೈ3 ನಂಬರ: 9480796063
&ೕಡುವ ಗಣ5ೕಕೃತ ಸ ಾ.8 ತ ೕ. ದೂರು. : ಾಂಕ: 13-10-2023 ೇ ಇ¹é ತರು<ಾಯ.
ಾನು ಕ=ೆದ ಒಂದು ವಷ.:ಂದ ಬಂ ಾಪ ರ ೕಸ ಾ ೆಯ ? ತ&'ಾ ()ಾಗದ
ಎ ಐ ಅಂAಾ ಕತ.ವ &ವ.BಸುCಾ ಬಂ:ದುD ಇರುತ#ೆ.
: ಾಂಕ: 07-10-2023 ರಂದು Bಂದೂ ಮEಾಗಣಪF ೇ<ಾ ಸGF 8 ೆಹರು
Iಾಡ.J ಕGೕK ಬಂ ಾಪ ರ ಆ :ನ ಾಯಂ ಾಲ NOೕ ಬಸನIೌಡ ಾಮನIೌಡ QಾKೕಲ
ಾ: ಯCಾRಳ Tಾಸಕರು (ಜಯಪ ರ (Vಾನಸ)ಾ WೇತO ಇವರು ಗಣಪF (Tೇಷ ಪXYೆIೆ
ಆಗGಸುFದುD, Bಂದೂ ಮEಾ ಗಣಪF ೇ<ಾ ಸGF ವFZಂದ Bಂದೂ ಜನ YಾಗೃF
ಸ ಾ<ೇಶದ ? )ಾಷಣ ಾಡುವವರು ಇ#ಾD ೆ ಅಂCಾ 1ಾF\ ]ೕ ೆIೆ oÁuɬÄAzÀ £À£ÀUÉ
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J.J¸ï.L © J£ï CUÀ¹ªÀĤ, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¹§âA¢AiÀĪÀgÁzÀ ºÉZï ¹ 996, 1433,
¦¹ 1133, 1136, 882, 931 ಇವ8Iೆ ಕತ.ವ ೆ^ &_ೕ"`ದುD ಇದುD ಅದರಂCೆ
ಾಯಂ ಾಲ ಬಸನIೌಡ ಾಮನIೌಡ QಾKೕಲ ಾ: ಯCಾRಳ ಇವರು ಮತು ಇತರರು 1ೈa
eÁvÁದ ಮೂಲಕ ಬಂದು ಗಣಪFIೆ ಪX"` ನಂತರ ೇ8#ೆ. d£ÀgÀ£ÀÄß GzÉÝò¹ D ¢£À
¢£ÁAPÀ: 07-10-2023 gÀAzÀÄ 18-10 UÀAmÉUÉ »AzÀÆ ªÀĺÁ UÀt¥Àw ¸ÉêÁ ¸À«Äw
ವFZಂದ Bಂದೂ ಜನ YಾಗೃF ಸ ಾ<ೇಶವ ಜರುbದುD ಸದರ Bಂದೂ ಜನYಾಗೃF
ಸ ಾ<ೇಶದ Bಂದು ಮEಾ ಸ)ಾ ಗಣಪF ೇ<ಾ ಸGF, ಅಂದ ೆ ಶ5, ಗಣಪF ಎಂದ ೆ
NC: 2025:KHC:4448
ಮು5, ಬಂ ಾಪ ರದ ಗಣಪF ಶ5 0ದಲು. IೊFರ cಾ?, ಗಣಪFಯನುR ಸdಲe ತAೆಯುವ
ಪOಯತR ಾf#ಾಗ ನಮ\ ಗಣಪನ ಶ5 ಇf ಕನRಡ ಾfIೆ FgZತು. ಾಂIೆO ಸ ಾ.ರ
ಬCಾ. ಇದD EಾIೆ 1ೆಳIಾ(ಯ ? Qಾ5 ಾನ ಧiಜ Eಾ:#ೆ ಅವ ೆಲ? ಸ ಾ.ರದ 0ಮ\ಕ^ಳj
ಇದು ಗಣಪF ಭಕರ ಶ5, ಾ<ೆcಾ? TೆOೕಷl<ಾದ ಸ ಾತನ ಧಮ. ೆ^ ೇ8ದವರು, (ಶdದ
ಕcಾ ಣ ಾ^b ಇರುವರು, ಇದನುR ೆಲವgÀÄ ಅವEೇಳನ ಾಡುF#ಾD ೆ, ನನIೆ ಅ ಾ ಯ<ಾದ ೆ
ಸುಮ\ ೆ ಕೂಡುವ :cಾ?. )ಾರತ #ೇಶ ಈ ಸಂಸoFಯ ಆVಾರದ ]ೕcೆ ಎಲ?gÀನುR
ಒಗೂpf` ೊಂಡು ಬಂ:#ೆ. ಆದ ೆ ೆಲವ #ೇಶಗಳ ? ಈ ಸಂಸoF ಇcಾ? ನಮ\ ಸಂಸoFಯ
(ರುದq ಾತ ಾಡುವರ (ರುದq ಧi& ಎತಲು ಾ<ೆcಾ? ಒಂ#ಾಗ1ೇಕು. ೆಲವ8Iೆ )ಾರತ
ಶ5Tಾ rಾಗುವ ದು, ಸುಭದO<ಾbರಲು ಇsಾt ಇcಾ?, ನಮ\ ಸರ ಾರದ ? rಾವ #ೇ
ಗಲ1ೆrಾ#ಾಗ ಾವ ದಂIೆ ೋಧ8Iೆ ತಕ^ NWೆ &ೕf#ೆDವ , ಾಂIೆOೕ ಸರ ಾರ ಬಂದ
]ೕcೆ 1ೆಳIಾ(ಯ ? Qಾ5 ಾನದ ಧiYಾ Eಾ ಾf#ೆ. ಧiಜ Eಾ ಾf`ದವರು Qಾ5 ಾನದ
0ಮ\ಕ^ಳj. Nವ0ಗp, ೋcಾರದ ? ಗಲ)ೆಗ=ಾb#ೆ. ೕ ಸರ ]ೕcೆ ಕಲು? ತು ಾfದುD
ಸಣuಘಟ ೆ ಎಂದು EೇಳjF#ಾD ೆ, ನಮ\ ಹುಡುಗುರು ಇ ೊRಬxರ ªÉÃಶ Eಾ5 ೊಂಡು ಗಲ)ೆ
ಾಡುವಂತ Eೇfಗಳಲ?.
ೆಲವ8Iೆ ಗಣಪನ ]ರವyIೆ ಅವರ ಓyಯ ? Eೋದ ೆ ಉ8ಯುತ#ೆ. ಈ ಮಕ^ಳj
ನಮ\ #ೇಶದ ಅನR Fಂದು Qಾ5 ಾJ "ಂ#ಾ1ಾ{ ಅನುRF#ಾD ೆ. 2024ರ ನಂತರ
Qಾ5 ಾನ ದ ? ಗಣಪFಯನುR ಪOFsಾlಪ ೆ ಾಡುCೇ<ೆ. Qಾ5 ಾನದ ಯುವಕರು 0ೕ:
ಪOVಾ& 1ೇಕು ಅಂCಾ ೆ, ನಮ\ ೆಲವರು Qಾ5 ಾನ 5 Yೈ ಅಂCಾರು Eೈ1ೆOೕ| ತgಯ
ಾಯಕರು ಮು`?ಂ ೆcಾ? ನಮIೆ ಓಟು Eಾ5#ಾD ೆ ಎಂದು Eೇg ೊಳj}Cಾ ೆ. BಂದುಗgIೆ
ಒಂ#ಾb ಒಂದುಕAೆ ಒ~ಾtb ಓಟು Eಾಕಲು ಶ5ವಂತ ಾಗ1ೇಕು. ಾವ Bಂದುಗಳj #ಾG.ಕ
ಕುಟುಂಬ ಎನುRವ ದನುR Qಾ ಸುCೇ<ೆ ನಮ\ ಸಂ ಾ^ರ, ಅದು ನಮ\ ಬಲBೕನCೆಯcಾ?,
ಸ ಾಥನ ಧಮ.ವನುR Eಾಳj ಾಡಲು ಇFEಾಸದ ? ಎಂCೆಂತವರ ಪOಯತR ಪಟtರು ನಮ\
ಸ ಾತನ ಧಮ.ವನುR 5ಂ€ತು ಅgIಾfಸಲು ಆbcಾ?, ಈ ಬಂಡು ೋರರು ನಮ\ ೆRೕನು
ಾಡಲು ಆಗುತ#ೆ? ನಲವತು ವಷ.:ಂದ ಈ ಬಂ ಾಪ ರದ ಸಂಘಟ ೆ ಭ ಷt<ಾಗತ¯É
ಬರುF#ೆ ಾನು !Yಾಪ ರದ ? ನನIೆ ಾಬರ ಓಟು 1ೇ ಾbಲ? ಅಂತ Eೇg#ೆDೕ<ೆ ನಮ\ವದು
ಸಂಘಟ ೆrಾb#ಾD ೆ ನಮ\ವ ೇ ªÉÇÃಟು Eಾ5ದ ೆ ಾಕು 20 ವಷ.ದ Bಂ#ೆ ಕನRಡ ಕ `ದ
]ೕಡಂIೆ ಕನRಡ ಕ ತ ಹುಡುಗ ೇ ]ೕಡಮ\&Iೆ ಕಲು? ಒIೆಯಲು Eೋb#ಾD ೆ. ಅPÀâ• ಎಂದೂ
ಮುಂ#ೆ ಬಂದು ಯುದq ಾfಲ?. ಈಗ ಈ ಮಕ^ಳj ನಮIೆ dA1ೆ Cೋ8ಸುCಾ ೆ ನಮ\
ಮ ೆಯ ?ಯ ಜಂ1ೆ ಉ=ಾ}ಗf% Eೆ‚ಾƒa ಇಲ?. ಮುಸcಾ\ನರು ಎಂದೂ ನಮ\ ಅಣu
ತಮ\ಂ:ರು ಆಗುವ :ಲ? &ೕವ ಸುಮ\ ೆ Fgದು ೊಂf:Dೕ8 1ಾZ 1ಾZ ಅಂತ
EೇಳjF:Dೕ8 ಆದ ೆ ಅವರು ತಮ\ ಬು:DಯನುR Cೋ8ಸ#ೇ !ಡುವ :ಲ?. ಮುಸcಾ\ನರು
ಅವರು ನಮIೆ ಎಂದೂ Bಂದುಗಳj ಅನುRವ :ಲ? ನಮ\ <ೈ8ಗಳj ಅಂತ EೇಳjCಾ ೆ ಆ
<ೇ=ೆಯ ? &ೕವ EೇIೆ ಅಣu-ತಮ\ಂ: ಾಗುFೕ8. &ೕವ rಾ<ಾಗcಾದರೂ ಮ`ೕ: ]ೕcೆ
#ಾg ಾf:Dೕ ಾ ಆದ ೆ Nವ0ಗpದ ? Bಂದುಗಳ ]ೕcೆ #ಾg ಾf#ಾD ೆ. rಾವ
ಸು=ೇಮಗ ಅವ ಔರಂಗYೇಬ, ಅPÀâ•, ಮEಾ ಾ ಾ ಪOCಾಪ ಅಂದ ೆ ಚf%ಯ ? ಹು‚ೆƒ
ಹುಯುD ೊಳj}FದD. ನಮ\ Bಂದು ಶ5ಯನುR Cೋ8ಸ1ೇಕು ಅಂತ ಮುಂCಾb
NC: 2025:KHC:4448
ಾತ ಾfದರು. ಸದ8ಯವರು )ಾಷಣವನುR ಾಯಂ ಾಲ 06-10 ಘಂ~ೆIೆ QಾOರಂಭ<ಾb
07-30 ಘಂ~ೆIೆ )ಾಷಣ ಮು ಾಯ ಆbದುD ಇರುತ#ೆ.
ಬಸನIೌಡ ಾಮನIೌಡ QಾKೕಲ ಾB ಯCಾRಳ ಇವರು ((ಧ ಗುಂಪ , YಾF-
YಾFಗಳ ಮದ , #ೆdೕಷವನುRಂಟು ಾಡುವ ದು ಮತು ಸEೌಧ.CೆIೆ 1ಾದಕ<ಾಗುವ
ಕೃತ ಗಳನುR ಾಡಲು )ಾಷಣ:ಂದ ((ಧ ಮFೕಯ ಮೂಲವಂNಯ ಮತು ೋಮುಗಳ
ನಡು<ೆ ಅ ೌEಾಧ.ವನುR ಅಥ<ಾ <ೈರ, #ೆdೕಷ, <ೈಮನ¹ìJ )ಾವ ೆಗಳನುR Eೆ€ƒಸಲು
ಾವ.ಜ&ಕ ೆಡು5Iೆ ಾರಣ<ಾಗುವ ಮFೕಯ #ೆdೕಷ)ಾಷಣ ಾfದುD ಇರುತ#ೆ.
ಆ ಾಲ ೆ^ ಾನು ಾಯ.ಕOಮದ QಾOರಂಭ:ಂದ ಮು ಾಯ<ಾಗುವವ ೆಗೂ
ಬಂ#ೋಬ ಕತ.ªÀå &ವ.ಹ ೆ#ೊಂ:Iೆ ಾನು ೇg` ೊಂfದುD, ಮತು ೋfದುD ಾ ೆಯ
`ಬxಂ:ಗಳj ಅಲ?#ೇ .` 931 ೇದವರು )ಾಷಣವನುR ಾ ೆಯ ಾ ಾ ಾದ ?
€FOಕ8`ದುD, ಈ :ನ ಾ ೆಯ `ಬxಂ: (f_ೕವನುR ` f ಮೂಲಕ ತುಂ!` ೊಂಡು
ಬಂದು Eಾಜರಪf`ದುD, ಈಗ ೋf 'ಾFO ಾf ೊಂಡು ತಡ<ಾb ದೂರು &ೕfದುD ಆzÉ.
ಬಸನIೌಡ ಾಮನIೌಡ QಾKೕಲ ¸Á: ಯCಾRಳ ಇವರ ]ೕcೆ ಕಲಂ 505(2) ಐ ` ೇದDರ
ಅfಯ ? ಸ ಾ.8 ತ . ದೂರು ಇರುತ#ೆ.
ತಮ\ (Tಾd`."
A perusal of the complaint afore-quoted, the point that
arises for consideration is, whether the complaint would meet
the ingredients of Section 505(2) of the IPC.
8. Section 505(2) of the IPC reads as follows:
"505. Statements conducing to public mischief.
(1) xxx
(2) Statements creating or promoting enmity,
hatred or ill-will between classes.-- Whoever makes,
publishes or circulates any statement or report NC:
2024:KHC:51256 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
NC: 2025:KHC:4448
regional groups or castes or communities, shall be
punished with imprisonment which may extend to three
years, or with fine, or with both."
The purport and the necessary ingredients of Section
505(2) of IPC need not detain this Court for long or delve deep
into the matter. The Apex Court in the case of BILAL AHMED
KALOO VS. STATE OF ANDRA PRADESH reported in (1997)
7 SCC 431, interpreting Section 505(2) of the IPC, has held as
follows:
".... .... ....
10. Section 153A was amended by the Criminal and
Election Laws (Amendment) Act 1969 - Act No.XXXV of
1996. It consists of three clauses of which clauses (a) and
(b) alone are material now. By the same amending Act
sub-section (2) was added to Section 505 of the Indian
Penal Code. Clauses (a) & (b) of Section 153A and Section
505(2) are extracted below:
"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,
NC: 2025:KHC:4448
language or regional groups or castes or communities, and
which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity, or
(c) * * *
Shall be punished with imprisonment which may
extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
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."
The common ingredient in both the offences is
promoting feeling of enmity, hatred or ill-will
between different religious or racial or linguistic or
regional groups or castes or communities. Section
153A covers a case where a person by "words,
either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible
representations" promotes or attempts to promote
such feeling. Under Section 505(2), promotion of
such feeling should have been done by making and
publishing or circulating any statement or report
containing rumour or alarming news.
11. This Court has held in Balwant Singh and another
vs. State of Punjab (1995) 3 SCC 214) that mens rea is a
necessary ingredient for the offence under Section 153A.
Mens rea is an equally necessary postulate for the
offence under Section 505(2) also as could be
discerned from the words "with intent to create or
promote or which is likely to create or promote" as
used in that sub-section.
NC: 2025:KHC:4448
12. The main distinction between the two
offences is that publication of the word or
representation is not necessary under the former,
such publication is sine qua non under Section 505.
The words "whoever makes, publishes or
circulates" used in the setting of Section
505(2) cannot be interpreted disjunctively but only
as supplementary to each other. If it is construed
disjunctively, any one who makes a statement
falling within the meaning of Section 505 would,
without publication or circulation, be liable to
conviction. But the same is the effect with Section
153A also and then that Section would have been
bad for redundancy. The intention of the legislature
in providing two different sections on the same
subject would have been to cover two different
fields of similar colour. The fact that both sections
were included as a package in the same amending
enactment lends further support to the said
construction.
13. xxx
14. In Sunilakhya Chowdhury vs. H.M. Jadwet and
another (AIR 1968 Calcutta 266) it has been held that the
words "makes or publishes any imputation" should be
interpreted as words supplementing each other. A maker
of imputation without publication is not liable to be
punished under that section. We are of the view that the
same interpretation is warranted in respect of the words
"makes, publishes or circulates" in Section 505 IPC also.
15. The common feature in both sections being
promotion of feeling of enmity, hatred or ill-will
"between different" religious or racial or language
or regional groups or castes and communities it is
necessary that atleast two such groups or
communities should be involved. Merely inciting the
felling of one community or group without any
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4448
reference to any other community or group cannot
attract either of the two sections.
16. The result of the said discussion is that
appellant who has not done anything as against any
religious, racial or linguistic or regional group or
community cannot be held guilty of either the
offence under Section 153A or under Section
505(2) of IPC."
(Emphasis supplied)
Later, the Apex Court in the case of MANZAR SAYEED
KHAN V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in (2007) 5
SCC 1
".... .... ....
15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
respective contentions of the learned counsel for the
parties. The question to be decided now is whether the
paragraph complained of would attract the penal
consequences envisaged in Section 153-A IPC. Section
153-A IPC was amended by the Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act, 1969 (Act 35 of 1969). It consists of
three clauses of which clauses (a) and (b) alone are
material for the case on hand, which read as under:
"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,
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4448
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 tranquility, or
(c)***
shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend
to three years, or with fine, or with both."
16. Section 153-A IPC, 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-A IPC
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.
17. In Ramesh v. Union of India [(1988) 1 SCC 668 :
1988 SCC (Cri) 266 : AIR 1988 SC 775] this Court held
that TV serial Tamas did not depict communal tension and
violence and the provisions of Section 153-A IPC would not
apply to it. It was also not prejudicial to the national
integration falling under Section 153-B IPC. Approving the
observations of Vivian Bose, J. in Bhagwati Charan
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4448
Shukla v. Provincial Govt. [AIR 1947 Nag 1] the Court
observed that
"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'." (Ramesh case [(1988) 1 SCC 668
: 1988 SCC (Cri) 266 : AIR 1988 SC 775] , SCC p. 676,
para 13)
18. Again in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of
A.P. [(1997) 7 SCC 431 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1094] it is
held that the common feature in both the sections
viz. Sections 153-A and 505(2), being promotion of
feeling of enmity, hatred or ill will "between
different" religious or racial or linguistic or regional
groups or castes and communities, it is necessary
that at least two such groups or communities should
be involved. Further, it was observed that merely
inciting the feeling of one community or group
without any reference to any other community or
group cannot attract either of the two sections.
19. Prof. James W. Laine, the author of the book, has
exercised his reason and his own analytical skills before
choosing any literature which he intends to include in his
book. Even if the appellant Manzar Sayeed Khan, a
constituted attorney of Oxford University Press, India and
the appellant Vinod Hansraj Goyal, proprietor of Rashtriya
Printing Press, Shahdara, Delhi, or the persons whose
names are mentioned in the acknowledgment by the
author, have provided information for the purpose,
including the said paragraph in the book, it is important
and worth observing that the author has mentioned that
BORI, Pune has been his scholarly home in India and many
people therein helped him for collecting the material. The
author has given the names of many persons, who had
helped him in one way or the other and enlightened him
about the history of the historical hero "Shivaji". The
author has also mentioned in the book about the
International Conference on Maharashtra, etc. which has
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4448
given him a lot of material for inclusion in his book. As it
appears from the records, BORI, Pune was established
almost 90 years back and it has a great tradition of
scholarly work. It is very improbable to imagine that any
serious and intense scholar will attempt to malign the
image of this glorious institute. The author thought his
work to be worthy of dedication to his mother, Marie
Whitwell Laine, which was purely a scholarly pursuit and
without any intention or motive to involve himself in
trouble. It is the sole responsibility of the State to make
positive efforts to resolve every possible conflict between
any of the communities, castes or religions within the
State and try every possible way to establish peace and
harmony within the State under every and all
circumstances.
20. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 : AIR 1992 SC 604] this
Court has observed that an FIR can be quashed if it does
not disclose an offence and there is no need for any
investigation or recording of any statement."
(Emphasis supplied)
If the complaint as afore-quoted is considered on the
touchstone of the principles elucidated by the Apex Court in the
judgments afore-quoted, the inevitable inference would be
obliteration of the crime.
9. It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the
Apex Court rendered in the case of STATE OF HARYANA V.
BHAJAN LAL reported in 1992 Supp. 1 SCC 335, wherein the
Apex Court holds as follows:
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4448
"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 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
noncognizable 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
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4448
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)
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
a. The criminal petition is allowed.
b. The impugned crime in Crime No.131/2023, pending
before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC,
Siggaon, Haveri, qua the petitioner, stands quashed.
_______SD/-__________
JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
NVJ
CT:SS
