Karnataka High Court
Ajay Kumar Gaali @ Gaali vs State Of Karnataka on 10 March, 2025
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:10210
CRL.P No. 13384 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13384 OF 2023
(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
AJAY KUMAR GAALI @ GAALI
S/O BASAVARAJU H.B.,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/O HONNENAHALLI,
BUKKAPATNA HOBLI,
SIRA TALUK,
TUMKUR-572 137.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DEEPAK B.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SIRA POLICE STATION,
TUMKUR-572 137.
Digitally signed
by LAKSHMI T
2. VIJAYRAJ M.,
Location: High
Court of S/O MALLESHAPPA,
Karnataka R/O AT BJP SIRA TOWN,
AGE MAJOR,
BLOCK PRESIDENT,
SANTHEPETE,
SIRA TOWN,
TUMKUR-572 137.
KARNATAKA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. ASMA KOUSER, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 IS SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:10210
CRL.P No. 13384 of 2023
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION AND QUASH THE CHARGE
SHEET IN C.C.NO.452/2023 REGISTERED FOR OFFENCE
P/U/S.124-A,505(1)(c),505(2) OF IPC FILED BY THE
COMPLAINANT BEFORE SIRA POLICE STATION, TUMAKURU
DISTRICT, PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION AND CJM COURT, SIRA, TUMAKURU
DISTRICT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
ORAL ORDER
Criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners
in C.C.No.452/2023 pending before the Court of the
Prinicpal Civil Judge, Senior Division and CJM Court Sira,
Tumakuru District is sought to be quashed in this petition
preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
2. Heard both sides and perused the material on
record.
3. On a complaint lodged by one Vijayaraj. M. S/o.
Malleshappa, a case was registered against petitioner in
Crime No.231/2020 at Sira Police Station, Tumakuru for
NC: 2025:KHC:10210
the offence punishable under Section 124-A, 505(1)(C),
505(2) of IPC.
4. In the complaint it is alleged that the petitioner
has posted certain anti-national comments on 21.06.2020
in his facebook account etc.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied on a
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in VINOD DUO V/s.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (2021) 12
SCR 1071, wherein it is held that "Section 124A and 505
comes into play only when the words or expression have
pernicious tendency or intention of creating public disorder
or disturbance of law and order". It is the contention of the
learned counsel that even accepting the case of the
prosecution, comments in the face book were not made
with the intent to incite people or showed tendency to
create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to
violence.
6. Reliance is also placed on a decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2022 Live law (SC) 470
NC: 2025:KHC:10210
in the case of S.G. VOMBATKERE V/s. UNION OF
INDIA wherein, the Supreme Court passed a direction to
keep in abeyance of all pending trials, appeals and
proceedings with respect to the charge framed under
Section 124-A of IPC.
7. The relevant paragraph No.8 of the above
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.G.VombatKere
stated supra is extracted herein under:
8. In view of the clear stand taken by the
Union of India, we deem it appropriate to pass
the following order in the interest of justice:
a. The interim stay granted in
W.P.(Crl.)No.217/2021 along with
W.P.(Crl.)No.216/2021 vide order dated
31.05.2021 shall continue to operate till further
orders.
b. We hope and expect that the State and
Central Governments will restrain from
registering any FIR, continuing any investigation
or taking any coercive measures by invoking
Section 124A of IPC while the aforesaid provision
of law is under consideration.
NC: 2025:KHC:10210
c. If any fresh case is registered under
Section 124A of IPC, the affected parties are at
liberty to approach the concerned Courts for
appropriate relief. The Courts are requested to
examine the reliefs sought, taking into account
the present order passed as well as the clear
stand taken by the Union of India.
d. All pending trials, appeals and
proceedings with respect to the charge framed
under Section 124A of IPC be kept in abeyance.
Adjudication with respect to other Sections, if
any, could proceed if the Courts are of the
opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the
accused.
e. In addition to the above, the Union of
India shall be at liberty to issue the Directive as
proposed and placed before us, to the State
Governments/Union Territories to prevent any
misuse of Section 124A of IPC.
f. The above directions may continue till
further orders are passed.
8. As per the above order, it was expected that
the State and Central Government will restrain from
NC: 2025:KHC:10210
registering any FIR, continuing any investigation or taking
any coercive measures by invoking Section 124-A of IPC.
9. In BALWANT SINGH & Anr. V/s. STATE OF
PUNJAB reported in (1995) 3 SCC 214, the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held as under:
'A plain reading of the above Section would show that its
application would be attracted only when the accused brings or
attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or excites or attempts to
excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in
India, by words either written or spoken or visible signs or
representations etc. Keeping in view the prosecution evidence that
the slogans as noticed above were raised a couple of times only by
the appellant and that neither the slogans evoked a response from
any other person of the Sikh community or reaction from people of
other communities, we find it difficult to hold that upon the raising
of such casual slogans, a couple of times without any other act
whatsoever the charge of sedition can be founded. It is not the
prosecution case that the appellants were either leading a
procession or were otherwise raising the slogans with the intention
to incite people to create disorder or that the slogans in fact
created any law and order problem. It does not appear to us that
the police should have attached much significance to the casual
slogans raised by two appellants, a couple of times and read to
much into them. The prosecution has admitted that no disturbance,
whatsoever, was caused by the raising of the slogans by the
appellants and that inspite of the fact that the appellants raised the
NC: 2025:KHC:10210
slogans a couple of times, the people, in general, were un-affected
and carried on with their normal activities. The casual raising of
the Slogans, once or twice by two individuals alone cannot be said
to be aimed at exciting or attempt to excite hatred or disaffection
towards the Government as established by law in India, Section
124A IPC, would in the facts and circumstances of the case have
no application whatsoever and would not be attracted to the facts
and circumstances of the case.
12. .................. In situations like that, over-sensitiveness
sometimes is counter-productive and can result in inviting trouble.
Raising of some lonesome slogans, a couple of times by two
individuals, without anything more, did not constitute any threat to
the Government of India as by law established nor could the same
give rise to feelings of enmity or hatred among different
communities or religious or other groups."
10. In KEDAR NATH SINGH V. STATE OF BIHAR
reported in 1962 SCC OnLine SC 6 in para nos. 24 to 26
of the judgment, it is held as under:-
"........That is why "sedition", as the offence in Section 124-
A has been characterised, comes, under Chapter VI relating to
offences against the State. Hence, any acts within the meaning of
Section 124-A which have the effect of subverting the Government
by bringing that Government into contempt or hatred, or creating
disaffection against it, would be within the penal statute because
the feeling of disloyalty to the Government established by law or
enmity to it imports the idea of tendency to public disorder by the
NC: 2025:KHC:10210
use of actual violence or incitement to violence. In other words,
any written or spoken words, etc. which have implicit in them the
idea of subverting Government by violent means, which are
compendiously included in the term "revolution", have been made
penal by the section in question. But the section has taken care to
indicate clearly that strong words used to express disapprobation
of the measures of Government with a view to their improvement or
alteration by lawful means would not come within the section.
Similarly, comments, however strongly worded, expressing
disapprobation of actions of the Government, without exciting
those feelings which generate the inclination to cause public
disorder by acts of violence, would not be penal. In other words,
disloyalty to Government established by law is not the same thing
as commenting in strong terms upon the measures or acts of
Government, or its agencies, so as to ameliorate the condition of
the people or to secure the cancellation or alteration of those acts
or measures by lawful means, that is to say, without exciting those
feelings of enmity and disloyalty which imply excitement to public
disorder or the use of violence.
25. It has not been contended before us that if a speech or a
writing excites people to violence or have the tendency to create
public disorder, it would not come within the definition of
"sedition". What has been contended is that a person who makes a
very strong speech or uses very vigorous words in a writing
directed to a very strong criticism of measures of Government or
acts of public officials, might also come within the ambit of the
penal section. But in our opinion, such words written or spoken
would be outside the scope of the section. In this connection, it is
pertinent to observe that the security of the State, which depends
NC: 2025:KHC:10210
upon the maintenance of law and order is the very basic
consideration upon which legislation, with a view to punishing
offences against the State, is undertaken............................
26.......................................It is only when the words,
written or spoken, etc. which have the pernicious tendency or
intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and
order that the law steps in to prevent such activities in the interest
of public order. So construed, the section, in our opinion, strikes
the correct balance between individual fundamental rights and the
interest of public order. It is also well settled that in interpreting an
enactment the Court should have regard not merely to the literal
meaning of the words used, but also take into consideration the
antecedent history of the legislation, its purpose and the mischief it
seeks to suppress .............''
11. From the above, it is evident that in cases
involving Section 124A of the IPC, casual or rhetorical
statements do not amount to sedition unless they incite
violence or public disorder. Therefore, there must be a
direct nexus between the impugned act and the likelihood
of causing disharmony or hatred.
12. In the present case, as there is no evidence on
record indicating that any violence occurred as a result of
the slogans raised despite being published on a social
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10210
media platform, and in the light of the above decisions of
the Hon'ble Apex Court, the continuation of the impugned
FIR and the consequential proceedings against the
petitioner for the offence under Section 124-A, 505(1)(c),
505(2) of the IPC amounts to an abuse of the process of
law.
13. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i) Petition is allowed.
ii) The entire proceedings in C.C.No.452/2023
pending on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge
(Senior Division) CJM, Sira Taluq are quashed.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
LDC
CT:SNN
