Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhagwan Singh Mokal vs Union Territory, Chandigarh on 8 January, 2001
Author: Amar Dutt
Bench: Amar Dutt
ORDER Amar Dutt, J.
1. Bhagwan Singh Mokal was apprehended in case FIR No. 101 of 1992 registered in Police Station, Central, Sector 17, Chandigarh under Sections 124A, 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act and 3, 4 and 5 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. According to the F.I.R. the Chandigarh Police had information that the petitioner was indulging in extremists activities in Chandigarh, Haryana and Punjab and he supplies arms and communication to the terrorists and also spreading anarchy by holdinganti-India meetings. On March 12, 1992, according to the information, the petitioner was holding a meeting at the Green Garden situated in the Rose Garden and was having arms and ammunition with him and planning the whole-sale murders of Hindus in Chandigarh. The petitioner was apprehended in the meeting where he was stated to be demanding a free Sikh Raj and asserting that he had no faith in Brahminism and the Constitution of India. He also raised the slogans of Khalistan and Bhindrawala Jindabad.
2. The petitioner through Crl. Misc. No. 17644-M of 1993 approached this Court to seek quashing of the F.I.R. and the resultant proceedings on the ground that the case under the Arms Act has been deleted and that the F.I.R. does not disclose any offence and when the raid was conducted, he was alone and nothing was recovered from him.
3. In the reply filed by the State, the assertions put forth by the petitioner in the petition were controverted and it was submitted that no case for quashing of the F.I.R. is made out.
4. I have heard Mr. P.S. Hundal, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ajai Lamba, Advocate on behalf of the U.T. Administration.
5. It is not disputed before me that apart from the assertion that the petitioner was raising pro-Khalistan and anti-Brahmin and Constitution slogans, no other incriminating circumstances have been collected by the Investigating Agency against the petitioner. In view of this, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to place reliance on the judgment reported as Balwant Singh and another v. State of Punjab, AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1785 : 1995(1) RCR(Crl.) 607 (P&H), in which the Apex Court has held as under :-
"A plain reading of the Section 124A 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. Thus where some slogans were raised, a couple of times by two accused persons and there was no evidence showing that the accused persons were either leading a procession or were otherwise raising the slogans with the intention to incite people to create disorder and no disturbance, whatsoever, was caused by the raising of the slogans and the people, in general, were unaffected and carried on with their normal activities, it cannot be said to be aimed at exciting or attempt to excite hatred or disaffection towards the Government as established by law in India. Hence Section 124A, IPC would not be attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case.
Section 153A provides forpunishment for promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any Other ground whatsoever or brings about disharmony or feeling of hatred or ill will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities. It is only where the written or spoken words have the tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order or affect public tranquility, that 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 153A, I.P.C. and me prosecution has to prove the existence of mens rea in order to succeed. In the present case, the prosecution has not been able to establish any mens rea on the part of the accused person as envisaged by the provisions of Section 153A IPC, by their raising casually the three slogans a couple of times. The offence under Section 153A is, therefore, not made out."
6. In view of fact that the petitioner has not been attributed anything more than slogans raising and no overt act has been committed by him nor there was any audience, which could have reacted of the slogans. From the material collected by the Investigating Agency till now no substantive offence can be said to have been made out. In view of this, the F.I.R. will have to be quashed.
7. For the reasons recorded above, the F.I.R. and the resultant proceedings are quashed.
8. Petition allowed.