Shri L S Tejasvi Surya vs State Of Karnataka on 12 December, 2024

[Cites 18, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Shri L S Tejasvi Surya vs State Of Karnataka on 12 December, 2024

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

Reserved on : 05.12.2024
Pronounced on : 12.12.2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.12267 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

SHRI L.S.TEJASVI SURYA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
S/O LA SURYANARAYANA
RESIDING AT NO.381,
1ST 'A' MAIN ROAD,
NEAR VIVEKANANDA PARK,
GIRINAGAR, 1ST PHASE,
BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA - 560 085.

... PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.ARUNA SHYAM, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI ANIRUDH A.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HAVERI CEN CRIME POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY THE S.P.P. OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2

2. SUNIL HUCHANNANAVAR
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O DILLESHWARA HUCHANNANAVAR
C/O DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, HAVERI,
MANJUNATH NAGAR, HAVERI DISTRICT,
HAVERI - 581 110.

REPRESENTED BY THE S.P.P. OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B.A.BELLIAPPA, SPP-I A/W
SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF
BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
COMPLAINT AND FIR IN CR.NO.99/2024 BOTH DATED 07.11.2024
REGISTERED BY HAVERI CEN CRIME P.S HAVERI FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 353(2) OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 PENDING
BEFORE HON'BLE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.) AND C.J.M COURT,
HAVERI DISTRICT ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE A AND B AT PAGE
NOS.24 TO 27.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 05.12.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner, a parliamentarian is knocking at the doors of

this Court in the subject petition calling in question registration of a

crime in Crime No.99 of 2024 for offences punishable under Section

353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. Heard Sri M.Aruna Shyam, learned senior counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.A. Belliappa, learned State

Public Prosecutor-I for the 1st respondent.

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

Somewhere during the month of September, 2024, the

Revenue Department of Government of Karnataka sought to

unilaterally effect changes of farm lands claimed to be belonging to

farmers, by inserting the name of the Karnataka Waqf Board, in the

revenue records. Show cause notices were issued to those farmers

requiring them to show cause as to why the change as stated above

should not be carried out in respect of their lands. The afore-said

action of the Government generated fear and furor and every
4

farmer getting anxious began protesting against the action of the

State Government. In this regard, the petitioner being a Member of

Parliament, representing Bangalore South Parliamentary

Constituency and also a Member of the Joint Parliamentary

Committee on the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, undertook a tour

throughout the State. On 7-11-2024 he met the affected farmers.

When he was at Hubballi, during the course of one such interaction,

he was apprised of suicide of a farmer's son by name one Rudrappa

in the neighbouring District of Haveri and was informed that the

deceased had died due to the claim of the Waqf Board over the land

belonging to him.

4. Taking the news as it was heard, the petitioner at about

5.45 p.m. posted a tweet on his handle on 'X' (earlier twitter)

sharing the news article of suicide of Rudrappa following the claim

by the Karnataka Waqf Board upon his land. In response to the

said tweet on the very same day, the Superintendent of Police,

Haveri District clarified the position that the suicide of the deceased

was not due to the land claim by the Waqf Board but on account of

loan that he had taken on the crop and loss of the crop. The
5

moment said clarification was issued, the petitioner thanking the

Superintendent of police for such clarification, deleted his tweet.

Between posting of the clarification by the Superintendent of Police

and deletion of the tweet by the petitioner, the news was aired in

several electronic media. A crime then comes to be registered on

07-11-2024 against the petitioner for the afore-quoted offence in

Crime No.99 of 2024. Registration of crime is what has driven the

petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

5. The learned senior counsel Sri M. Arun Shyam appearing

for the petitioner would vehemently contend that none of the

ingredients necessary under Section 353(2) of BNS are present in

the case at hand. It is his submission that the crime is deliberately

registered, notwithstanding deletion of the tweet once the

clarification was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Haveri.

Therefore, there is nothing that would become an offence under the

said provision of law. He would seek quashment of entire

proceedings, by placing reliance upon several judgments of the

Apex Court and that of this Court to buttress his contention in

support of quashment of proceedings.
6

6. Per contra, the learned State Public Prosecutor-I

Sri B.A. Belliappa would vehemently refute the submissions

contending that it is a false information that was tweeted by the

petitioner. He ought to have been responsible while posting such a

tweet on 'X'. He would contend that the said tweet is carried out by

the electronic media which led the people to believe that a suicide

also has happened due to the alleged claim of Waqf Board over the

property of the deceased - Rudrappa. It is his submission that

proceedings were instituted against the deceased in 2011 and he

dies not because of the claim of the property by the Waqf board but

he had committed suicide in the year 2022 itself. The petitioner

ought to have been cautious prior to tweeting the said item. He

may have deleted it immediately after the clarification, but

nonetheless, since it was also a subject matter of discussion of

news in the electronic media, it does attract the ingredients of

Section 353(2) of BNS / 505(2) of the earlier regime - the IPC.

7. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would join

issue to submit that on the issue of petitioner's tweet, the father of

the deceased was interviewed. The said interview is in public
7

domain. The interview clearly supports what the petitioner had

tweeted. He would submit that the petitioner clarified the position

for the reason that it was tweeted, as it was told to him which is

vindicated in the interview of the father of the deceased. In all, he

would seekquashment of registration of the crime itself.

8. This Court, by a detailed interim order dated 14-11-2024,

stalled further investigation into the matter.

9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the

material on record.

10. The afore-narrated link in the dates and chain of events

are all in public domain. The crime is registered against the

petitioner under Section 353(2) of the BNS. Section 353(2) of the

BNS reads as follows:

"353. Statements conducing to public mischief.--
(1) Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any
statement, false information, rumour, or report,
including through electronic means--
8

(a) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause,
any officer, soldier, sailor or airman in the Army,
Navy or Air Force of India to mutiny or otherwise
disregard or fail in his duty as such; or

(b) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or
alarm to the public, or to any section of the public
whereby any person may be induced to commit an
offence against the State or against the public
tranquillity; or

(c) with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite, any
class or community of persons to commit any offence
against any other class or community,

shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to
three years, or with fine, or with both.

(2) Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any
statement or report containing false information,
rumour or alarming news, including through electronic
means, 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.

(3) Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-
section (2) 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.

Exception.--It does not amount to an offence,
within the meaning of this section, when the person
making, publishing or circulating any such statement,
false information, rumour or report, has reasonable
grounds for believing that such statement, false
information, rumour or report is true and makes,
9

publishes or circulates it in good faith and without any
such intent as aforesaid."

(Emphasis supplied)

Section 353 is Section 505 of the earlier regime of IPC. Section

353(2) punishes a person who makes, publishes or circulates any

statement or report containing false information, rumour or

alarming news, including through electronic means with intent to

create or promote disharmony, enmity, hatred or ill-will between

different religions with certain exceptions. It becomes germane to

notice whether the facts in the case at hand would meet the

ingredients as necessary. All begins with a tweet of the petitioner.

The tweet reads as follows:

"BREAKING : ಜ ೕ ನ ಪಹ ಯ ' ವPïá' ೆಸರು ನಮೂದು : ಾ ೇ ಯ
ಮನ ೊಂದು ' ೈತ'
ೈತ ಆತ ಹ ೆ!.!
ೆ!

07-11-2024 1:03PM IST/ No Comments / Posted
In: Karnataka, Latest News, Live News

ಾ ೇ : ಜ ೕ ನ ಪಹ ಯ ವPïá ೆಸರು ನಮೂದು ಆ"ದ#$ೆ% ಾ ೇ ಯ
ಮನ ೊಂದು ೈತ ೊಬ'ರು ಆತ ಹ ೆ! (ಾ)$ೊಂ)*ಾ# ೆ ಎನ,-ಾ"*ೆ.
ಎನ,-ಾ"*ೆ

ಾ ೇ .-ೆಯ ಹರನ" /ಾ0ಮದ ೈತ ಚನ,ಪ2 ಎಂಬುವವರ ಪ3ತ0 ರುದ0ಪ2 ಎಂಬುವವರು
ಆತ ಹ ೆ! (ಾ)$ೊಂ)*ಾ# ೆ ಎಂದು ೈತ ೊಬ'ರು ಆ ೋಪ (ಾ)*ಾ# ೆ.ೆ
10

4 ಎಕ ೆ ೊಲದ ಪಹ ಯ ವPïá ೆಸರು ನಮೂದು
ನಮೂದು ಆ"ದ#$ೆ% ಅವರು ಆತ ಹ ೆ!/ೆ
ಶರ8ಾ"ರುವ3ದು 9ೆಳ;/ೆ ಬಂ<*ೆ.
ಬಂ<*ೆ ಘಟ ೆ ? ೆ,-ೆ /ಾ0ಮದ ಜನರು ಆ$ೊ0ೕಶ ೊರ
ಾ;*ಾ# ೆ."
ೆ
(Emphasis added)

The tweet is immediately clarified by the Superintendent of Police,

Haveri. It reads as follows:

"< ಾಂಕ: 07.11.2024 ರಂದು ಕನ,ಡ ನೂ!B ೌ ಎಂಬ ೆಸ ನ ).ಟD ನೂ!B ದ
ಾ ೇ .-ೆಯ ಹರಣ" /ಾ0ಮದ ೈತ ಚನ,ಪ2 ಎಂಬುವವರ ಪ3ತ0 ರುದ0ಪ2 ಎಂಬ ೈತ, 08
ವಷGಗಳ ?ಂ*ೆ, 04 ಏಕ ೆ ೊಲದ ಪಹ ಯ ವPïá ೆಸರು ಬಂ<ರುವದ$ೆ% ಮನ ೊಂದು
ಆತ ಹ ೆ! (ಾ)$ೊಂ)ರುವ*ಾ" ಾ ೇ ೈತರು ಆ ೋJK*ಾ# ೆಂದು ವರ< ಪ0ಕಟ
(ಾ)ರು ಾL ೆ. ಆದ ೆ ಮೃತ ರುದ0ಪ2 ತಂ*ೆ ಚನ,ಪ2 9ಾN$ಾO ಇತನು ತಮ ಆKLಯ ಪಹ ಯ
ವPïá ಅಂ ಾ ನಮೂದು ಆ"ದ#$ೆ% ಮನ ೊಂದು ಆತ ಹ ೆ! (ಾ)$ೊಂ)ರು ಾL ೆ ಅಂ ಾ Qಾವ3*ೇ
ೕR ಪ0ಕರಣ *ಾಖ-ಾ"ರುವ<ಲ.

< ಾಂಕ: 06.01.2022 ರಂದು ರುದ0ಪ2 ತಂ*ೆ ಚನ,ಪ2 9ಾN$ಾO, ವQಾ: 24 ವಷG,
Tಾ|| ಹರಣ" /ಾ0ಮ, ಾನಗD ಾಲೂಕ, ಇವರು ಐKಐKಐ 9ಾ!ಂW ಾ ೇ XಾYೆಯ 03
ಲZ ಾಗೂ Yಾಸ"Qಾ" 04 ಲZ ರೂ[ಾO $ೈಗಡ Tಾಲ (ಾ)$ೊಂ)ದು#, ಅRೕ ೆಚು\
ಮ]ೆQಾ" 9ೆ]ೆ ಾ Qಾ"ದ# ಂದ ಮನ ೊಂದು ^ಷ Tೇ^K ಆತ ಹ ೆ! (ಾ)$ೊಂ)ರು ಾL ೆ
ಅಂ ಾ ಇವರ ತಂ*ೆ ಚನ,ಪ2 9ಾN$ಾO, ಇವರು ವರ< $ೊ_`ದು#, ಆಡೂರ a ೕB bಾ8ೆ
ಯು)ಆc ಸಂYೆ!: 03/2022, ಕಲಂ: 174 KಆcJK ಪ0$ಾರ ಯು)ಆc *ಾಖ K$ೊಂ)ದು#
ಇರುತL*ೆ. ಅದರ ತಮ ಆKLಯ ವPïá ಅಂ ಾ ನಮೂ*ಾ"ದ#$ೆ% ಆತ ಹ ೆ! (ಾ)$ೊಂ)ರು ಾL ೆ
ಅಂ ಾ Qಾವ3*ೇ ೕR ನಮೂ<Kರುವ<ಲ.

ಸದ ಮೃತನ ಬ/ೆd JಎBಐ ಆಡೂರ ರವರು ತ Yೆ $ೈ/ೊಂಡು, ಆತನು 9ೆ]ೆ
ಾ Qಾ"ದ# ಂದ Tಾಲ (ಾ)ದ#$ೆ% ಮನ ೊಂದು ಆತ ಹ ೆ! (ಾ)$ೊಂ)ರು ಾL ೆ ಅಂ ಾ
Tಾeಾfಾರಗಳನು, ಸಂಗ0?K, ಅಂRಮ ವರ<ಯನು, ತಹgೕ-ಾ#ರ ಾನಗD ರವ /ೆ
ಸ Kರು ಾL ೆ. ಸದ ಮೃತನ ಕುಟುಂಬ$ೆ% ಸ$ಾGರ<ಂದ 05 ಲZ ರೂ[ಾO ಪ ಾರ
ಒದ"ಸ-ಾ"ರುತL*ೆ."
11

The moment clarification is issued, the petitioner deletes the tweet

and informs such deletion. The deletion reads as follows:

"Tejasvi Surya @Tejasvi_Surya.6d

Thanks for the information. The tweet stands
deleted. I will henceforth not rely on the news
agency that reported it.

Given the rampant amount of WAQF
conversion notices to 1000s of farmers across
the State, one is easily led to believe such
outcomes."
(Emphasis added)

The posting of the tweet, the clarification and the deletion happens

on the same day i.e., 07-11-2024. By then, it appears, that certain

news channels had aired the subject news. Therefore, in the

evening on the same day i.e., 07-11-2024 a crime comes to be

registered at 8.30 p.m. in Crime No.99 of 2024, the impugned

crime. It becomes germane to notice the complaint which led to

registration of crime. It reads as follows:-

UÉ,
(ಾನ! a ೕB ಇನi[ೆಕ`c,
K.ಇ.ಎj. $ೆkಂ a ೕB bಾ8ೆ,
ಾ ೇ ,

ಾನು ಸು ಲ ತಂ*ೆ <-ೇಶmರ ಹುಚ\ಣnನವರ, ವQಾ: 39 ವಷG, rಾR: ?ಂದೂ
ಕುರುಬರ, ಉ*ೊ!ೕಗ: KJK-876, TೊgಯD )Qಾ (ಾ ಟ ಂx TೆD, .-ಾ a ೕB
12

ಕyೇ ಾ ೇ , ^]ಾಸ: Tಾ|| ಮಂಜು ಾಥ ನಗರ, ಾ ೇ , ಾ ೇ , {.ನಂ. 7892398279
ೕಡುವ ಗಣ;ೕಕೃತ ~QಾGದು ಎ ೆಂದ ೆ,

ಾನು •ೕಲ%ಂಡ ^]ಾಸದ ಾಸ ಾ"ದು#, .-ಾ a ೕB ಕyೇ ಾ ೇ ಯ
ಕ]ೆದ
ಕ]ೆದ 3 ವಷGಗNಂದ TೊgಯD )Qಾ (ಾ ಟ ಂx TೆDನ
TೆDನ $ೆಲಸ (ಾಡುRLರು ೆLೕ ೆ.ೆ ಈ
<ನ ಾನು ಕyೇ ಯ ದು# TೊgಯD )Qಾ (ಾ ಟ ಂx TೆDನ
TೆDನ ಕತGªÀå
ವG?ಸುRL*ಾ#ಗ ಮfಾ!ಹ, 1:00 ಗಂ•ೆ ಸು(ಾ /ೆ E-Paper ಕನ,ಡ ದು Qಾ ದ
"Breaking: ಜ ೕ ನ ಪಹ ಯ ವZ ೆಸರು ನಮೂದು:
ನಮೂದು ಾ ೇ ಯ ೈತ ಆತ ಹ ೆ!!
ೆ! ಎಂಬ
g‚G$ೆ ಅ)ಯ ಾ ೇ : ಜ ೕ ನ ಪಹ ಯ ವZ ೆಸರು ನಮೂ*ಾ"ದ#$ೆ% ಾ ೇ ಯ
ಮನ ೊಂದು ೈತ ೊಬ'ರು ಆತ ಹ ೆ! (ಾ)$ೊಂ)*ಾ# ೆ ಎನ,-ಾ"*ೆ.
ಎನ,-ಾ"*ೆ ಾ ೇ .-ೆಯ ಹರನ"
/ಾ0ಮದ ೈತ ಚನ,ಪ2 ಎಂಬುವವರ ಪ3ತ0 ರುದ0ಪ2 ಎಂಬುವವರು ಆತ ಹ ೆ! (ಾ)$ೊಂ)*ಾ# ೆ
ಎಂದು ಆ ೋಪ (ಾ)*ಾ# ೆ 4 ಎಕ ೆ ೊಲದ ಪಹ ಯ ವZ ೆಸರು ನಮೂ*ಾ"ದ#$ೆ% ಅವರು
ಆತ ಹ ೆ!/ೆ ಶರ8ಾ"ರುವ3ದು 9ೆಳ;/ೆ ಬಂ<*ೆ.
ಬಂ<*ೆ ಘಟ ೆ ?ನ,-ೆ /ಾ0ಮದ ಜನರು ಆ$ೊ0ೕಶ ೊರ
ಾ;*ಾ# ೆ"
ೆ ಅಂ ಾ ಮತುL E-Paper Kannada News ನ "Breaking ಜ ೕ ನ ಪಹ ಯ
ವZ ೆಸರು
ೆಸರು ನಮೂದು:
ನಮೂದು ಾ ೇ ಯ ೈತ ಆತ ಹ ೆ! ಎಂಬ g‚G$ೆ ಅ)ಯ " ಾ ೇ :
ಜ ೕ ನ ಪಹ ಯ ವZ ೆಸರು ಬಂ<ರುವ3ದ$ೆ% (ಾನKಕ ಾ" ಮನ ೊಂದು ೈತ ೊಬ'ರು
ಆತ ಹ ೆ! (ಾ)$ೊಂ)*ಾ# ೆ ಎಂದು ಾ ೇ ೈತರು ಆ ೋJK*ಾ# ೆ.ೆ ಾ ೇ .-ೆಯ ಹರನ"
/ಾ0ಮದ ೈತ ಚನ,ಪ2 ಎಂಬುವವರ ಪ3ತ0 ರುದ0ಪ2
ರುದ0ಪ2 ಎಂಬುವವರು ಆತ ಹ ೆ! (ಾ)$ೊಂ)ರುವ3*ಾ"
ೈತರು ಆ ೋJKರು ಾL ೆ.ೆ 8 ವಷGಗಳ ?ಂ*ೆ 4 ಎಕ ೆ ೊಲದ ಪಹ ಯ ವZ ೆಸರು
ಬಂ<ರುವ3ದ$ೆ% ಮನ ೊಂದು ೈತ ರುದ0ಪ2 ಆತ ಹ ೆ! (ಾ)$ೊಂ)ರುವ3*ಾ" ಾ ೇ ಯ
ೈತರು ಆ ೋJK*ಾ# ೆ.ೆ ಸಧ! ೈತರು ವZ ೋ_B ^ರುದ„ ಪ0Rಭಟ ೆ ನ†ೆಸುRL*ಾ# ೆ"
ೆ ಎಂಬ
ಸು<#ಯನು, ತಮ E-Paper ಗಳ ಸಂ[ಾದಕರು ಪ0Tಾರ (ಾ)ರು ಾL ೆ.ೆ ನಂತರ •ೕಲ%ಂಡ
ಸು<#ಯನು, ‡rೆJ ಸಂಸದ ಾದ g0ೕ ೇಜKm ಸೂಯG ಇವರು ಕನ,ಡ ದು Qಾ E-Paper ನ
ಸು<#ಯನು, •ಾ!x (ಾ) @tejasvi_surya ಎಂಬ SÁvÉAiÀÄ°è A farmer in Haveri
commits suicide after finding his land is taken over by Waqf!, In their haste to
appease minorities, CM @siddaramaiah and minister @BZZameerAhmedK
have unleashed catastrophic effects in Karnataka that are becoming impossible
to contain with every passing day ಅಂ ಾ ಇ ಾ!< aೕB` (ಾ)ರು ಾL ೆ.ೆ

£ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ ¸ÀÄ¢Ý PÀ£ÀßqÀ zÀÄ¤AiÀiÁ E-Paper ಮತುL Kannada News
E-Paper ನ ಬಂ<ರುವ (ಾ?Rಯನು, (ಾನ! a ೕB ಅˆೕZಕರು, ಾ ೇ .-ೆ ರವ /ೆ
RNK*ಾಗ, (ಾನ!ರು •ೕಲ%ಂಡ ಸದ ಸು<#ಯ ಬ/ೆd Fact Check (ಾಡುವಂ ೆ RNKದರು.
ನಂತರ ಾನು ಮತುL .-ಾ a ೕB - ಕyೇ ಯ, Kಸ`ಂ ಎrä Tೆ‰ೕಟc ಪ0$ಾಶ /ಾಯದ ಇವರು
13

Tೇ Fact Check (ಾ)*ಾಗ, ಪ0ಸುLತದ ಾ ೇ f¯ÉèAiÀÄ°è F jÃw ವZ ^ಷಯ$ೆ%
ಸಂಬಂˆKದಂ ೆ ೈತ ಆತ ಹ ೆ! ಪ0ಕರಣ ನ†ೆ<ರುವ3<ಲ. ಆದ ೆ •ೕಲ%ಂಡ E-Paper ಗಳ
ಬಂದಂತ ಸು<# < ಾಂಕ: 06/01/2022 ರಂದು ಆಡೂರ a ೕB bಾ8ೆಯ ಾ!JLಯ ಹರನ"
/ಾ0ಮದ ೈತ Tಾಲ<ಂದ ಮನ ೊಂದು ಆತ ಹ ೆ! (ಾ)$ೊಂಡ ^ಷಯ ಾ"ದು#, ಈ ಕು ತು
ಈ/ಾಗ-ೇ ಆಡೂರ a ೕB bಾ8ೆ ಯು)ಆc ನಂ. 3/2022 ಕಲಂ 174 KಆcJK ಅ)ಯ
ಪ0ಕರಣ *ಾಖ-ಾ" ಅಂRಮ ವರ<ಯನು, ತಹg-ಾ#ರ ಾನಗD ರವ /ೆ ಸ Kದು#, ಸದ ಪ0ಕರಣ
ಮು$ಾLಯªÁ"ರುತL*ೆ. ಇ*ೇ ಸು<#ಯನು, ಪ0ಸುLತ ವZ ^Šಾರ$ೆ% ನ†ೆ<*ೆ ಅಂ ಾ ‡ಂ‡K ಸುಳ‹Œ
ಸು<#ಯನು, ಪ0Tಾರ (ಾ)ರುವ ಬ/ೆd (ಾನ! a ೕB ಅˆೕZಕ /ೆ RNK*ಾಗ, (ಾನ!ರು ಈ ಬ/ೆd
ದೂರು ೕಡುವಂ ೆ RNKದ •ೕ ೆ/ೆ ಈ <ನ bಾ8ೆ/ೆ ದೂರು ೕಡಲು ಬಂ<ರು ೆLೕ ೆ.

ಈ ೕR •ೕಲ%ಂಡ ಸು<#ಯ ಸ ಾ!ಸತ! ೆಯನು, ಪ gೕ ಸ*ೆ ತಮ @tejasvi_surya
ಎಂಬ 'X' Yಾ ೆಯ •ೕಲ%ಂಡಂ ೆ ಸುಳ‹Œ ಸು<#ಯನು, aೕB` (ಾ)ದ ‡rೆJ ಸಂಸದ ಾದ g0ೕ
ೇಜKm ಸೂಯG ಮತುL ಸುಳ‹Œ ಸು<# ಪ0Tಾರ (ಾ)ದ ಕನ,ಡ ದು Qಾ E-Paper ಮತುL Kannada
News E-Paper ಸಂ[ಾದಕರ •ೕ-ೆ ಸೂಕL $ಾನೂನು ಕ0ಮ ಜರು"ಸಲು ನನ, ~QಾGದು ಇರುತL*ೆ.

ಸ•ಳ: ಾ ೇ vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹
¢£ÁAPÀ: 07/11/2024 ¸À»/-"

(Emphasis added)

This becomes the subject crime. If the issue had stopped at that it

would have been a circumstance something different. The father of

the deceased/Rudrappa was interviewed by the media. The

transcript of the interview reads as follows:

" aೕಟc : ಇವತುL ಾrಾ!ದ!ಂತ ವPïá ^Šಾರ ಾ" ಅ ೇಕ ೈತರು ಆ$ೊ0ೕಶವನು,
ೊರ ಾಕುR*ಾ# ೆ. ಈ ಸಂದಭGದ ಒಬ' ೈತ ಆತ ಹ ೆ!/ೆ ಶರ8ಾ"ದ# ಇದ$ೆ% $ಾರಣ ಏನು ಅಂತ
ಹುಡುಕು ಾL ೋ*ಾಗ _mB` •ೕ-ೆ _mB` K$ಾL ಇ*ೆ. ಪಹ ಯ ವPïá ಅಂತ ಬಂ<ದ#$ೆ% ಅವರು
ಆತ ಹ ೆ! (ಾ)$ೊಂ)*ಾ# ೆ ಎಂದು ಕುಟುಂಬಸ•ರು ಆ ೋಪ (ಾ†ಾL ಇ*ಾ# ೆ, ಅ*ೆ0 a ೕಸರು
14

ಆತ /ೆ Tಾಲ ಇತುL Tಾಲದ ೊ ೆOಂದ ಆತ ?ೕ/ೆ (ಾ)$ೊಂ)*ಾ# ೆ ಎಂದು Žಾ!PïÖŠೆW
aೕ•G ೕ)*ಾ# ೆ......

aೕಟGc : ೈತ ರುದ0ಪ2 ಆತ ಹ ೆ! $ೇB/ೆ ಮ ೊLಂದು ‡x _mB` K$ಾL ಇ*ೆ. ಪಹ ಯ ವPïá
ಅಂತ ಉ-ೇಖ ಇ*ೆ ಅ*ೆ0 ೈತನ ಆತ ಹ ೆ!ಗೂ ಇದಕೂ% ಸಂಬಂಧ^*ಾ!? Tಾಲದ ೊ ೆOಂದ
ಆತ ಹ ೆ! ಾ ಅಥ ಾ ವPïá/ೆ ೆದ ಆತ ಹ ೆ! (ಾ)$ೊಂಡ0.. ಇ ಕುಟುಂಬಸ•ರು ೇNL ೋದು
ಸತ! ಾ..a ೕಸರು ೇN ೋದು ಸತ! ಾ.. ಇದನು, RNಸಲು ಮೃತ ರುದ0ಪ2 ಅವರ ತಂ*ೆ ಈಗ
ನ{ ಂ</ೆ ೇರ ಸಂಪಕGದ *ಾ# ೆ.

aೕಟc:ಸc ನಮTೆL
ಮೃತನ ತಂ*ೆ : ನಮTೆL ಸc

aೕಟc : aೕ ಸರು ಮ ಹRLರ ಬಂ<ದ0.. ಏj ಆದು0 $ೇಳ‹ದ0...
ಮೃತನ ತಂ*ೆ : ಇ-ಾ ಸc.. ಬಂ<ಲ

aೕಟc : ಮ ಮ ೆಯವರ ಹRLರ.. ಮ ಕುಟುಂಬದವರನು, ಏನು (ಾ ಾ)K-ಾm?
ಮೃತ ೈತನ ತಂ*ೆ : ಇ-ಾ ಸc..

aೕಟc : Šೆನ,•ಪ ಅವ ೇ ರುದ0ಪ2 ಅವರು ಮ ಮಗ ಅಲ ೇ ಅವರು ಆತ ಹ ೆ! (ಾ)$ೊಳŒಲು
$ಾರಣ ೇನು ?
ಮೃತ ೈತನ ತಂ*ೆ : ಪ0ಮುಖ ಾ" ಆKL ೇ $ಾರಣ..ಅದು ಮುKಂಮ ಂದ ?)ದದು# ಸc...ಅವರ ಆ'ೆ
ಪ0$ಾರ ಬಂ<ದು# ಅಣnತಮ /ೆ... 1964 ರ ನಮ ತಂ*ೆವರು ಮುKಂಮ ಂದ ಖ ೕ< (ಾ)ದು0..
ಒಟು` 4 ಎಕ ೆ 34 ಗುಂ•ೆ ಆKL. 1964 ಂದ 2015ರವ ೆ/ೆ Qಾವ3*ೇ ತಕ ಾರು ಇರ ಲ.. 2015ರ
ಎ.K ಯವರು ವPïá ಮು$ಾg ಟ0B` ಅಂತ ಬದ-ಾವ8ೆ (ಾ)K*ಾ# ೆ. ಅವತುL ನನ, ಮಗ 9ೆ]ೆ<ದ# ಹRL,
rೋಳ, ಕಬು' ಎಲವನು, ೋಟ ೊ†ೆದು ಾಶ (ಾ) ಕಳ‹?Kದರು. ?ೕ/ಾ" ನಮ ಮಗ
ಆತ ಹ ೆ! (ಾ)$ೊಂ)*ಾ# ೆ.

aೕಟc : Šೆನ,ಪ2 ಅವ ೇ ವPïá ಅ ೊ,ೕ ೆಸರು ಬಂದ $ಾರಣ 9ೇrಾc (ಾ)$ೊಂಡು ಆತ ಹತ!
(ಾ)$ೊಂ)*ಾ# ೆ ಎಂದು ೇ]ಾL ಇ<#ೕ ಾ....
ಮೃತ ೈತನ ತಂ*ೆ : ೌ<0 ಸc..

aೕಟc : ಮ ಮಗ Tಾಲ (ಾ)$ೊಂ)*ಾ0?
ಮೃತ ೈತನ ತಂ*ೆ : ನನ, ಮಗ ವ!ವ ಾರ (ಾಡುRLದ# ಾ/ಾ" Tಾಲ ಆ"ತುL.
15

aೕಟc : Šೆನ,ಪ2 ಅವ ೇ ಮ ಮಗ Tಾಲ (ಾ)$ೊಂ)ದ$ೆ% ಆತ ಹ ೆ! (ಾ)$ೊಂ)ದ# ಅಥ ಾ
ವPïá ಅ ೊ,ೕ ೆಸರು ಬಂ<ದ$ೆ% ಆತ ಹ ೆ! (ಾ)$ೊಂ)ದ#.. ಮ ಆ ೋಪ ಏನು ?

ಮೃತ ೈತನ ತಂ*ೆ : ವPïá ಅ ೊ,ೕ ೆಸರು ಬಂ<ದ#$ೆ% ಮನKi/ೆ ೋವ3 (ಾ)$ೊಂಡು ಅ*ೇ
'ಂ ೆಯ ಆತ ಹ ೆ! (ಾ)$ೊಂ)*ಾ# ೆ.ೆ

aೕಟc : ಮ ೆL a ೕಸರು ೇN*ಾ# ೆ,ೆ ರುದ0ಪ2 /ೆ Tಾಲ ಇತುL Tಾಲ9ಾfೆ ಾಳ-ಾರ*ೇ
ಆತ ಹ ೆ! (ಾ)$ೊಂ)*ಾ# ೆ ಎಂದು.
ಎಂದು ಇದನು, ಒJ2$ೊNL ಾ?
ಾ
ಮೃತ ೈತನ ತಂ*ೆ : ಇ-ಾ ಸc ಅದು ಆ ೕR ಅ-ಾ..
ಅ-ಾ ಅ ಾಗ ನಮ/ೆ ವPïá ಅಂ*ೆ0 ಏನು ಅಂತ
ಗ)‡)ಯ /ೊ ಾLಗ ಲ..ಆಗ
ಲ ಆಗ ವPïá ಅ ೊ,ೕ ೆಸರು ೋ) (ಾನKಕ ಾ" ೊಂದು ಅತ ಹ ೆ!
(ಾ)$ೊಂ)*ಾ# ೆ.ೆ

aೕಟc : ೇN ಮ ಅ"[ಾ0ಯ ೇN
ಮೃತ ೈತನ ತಂ*ೆ : ಅ*ೇ Tಾc..
Tಾc ವPïá ಅ ೊ,ೕ ೆಸರು ಬಂ<ದ$ೆ% 9ೇಸರ/ೊಂಡು ನಮ ಮಗ
ಆತ ಹ ೆ! (ಾ)$ೊಂ)*ಾ# ೆ..
ೆ ಾ/ಾ" ನಮ/ೆ ಪ ಾರ $ೊ)K ಅಂತ $ೇ]ಾL ಇ<#ೕ ..ನಮ
ನಮ ಆKL
ನಮ ೆಸ /ೆ (ಾ)$ೊ)
(ಾ)$ೊ).
)$ೊ) ನಮ/ೆ ಇ ೋದು ಅ*ೊಂ*ೇ ೊಲ ಸc...
ಸc
aೕಟc : ಖಂ)ತ ಅದನು, Žಾ-ೋ ಅ• (ಾ)Lೕ^ Šೆನ,ಪ2 ಅವ ೇ..
ೇ ಧನ! ಾದಗಳ‹ ಇಷು` ೊತುL
ನಮ rೊ ೆ (ಾತ ಾ)ದ$ೆ%.
ಾ)ದ$ೆ%

aೕಟc : ಖುದು# ರುದ0ಪ2 ಅವರ ತಂ*ೆ Šೆನ,ಪ2 ಅವ ೇ ೇN*ಾ# ೆ.ೆ ವPïá ೆಸ ತುL ಅದ ಂದ
ೊಂ<ದ# ಆತ..
ಆತ Tಾಲ (ಾ)$ೊಂ)zÀÝ ಇಲ ಅಂತ ೇNLಲ ಆ*ೆ0 ಜ ೕನು $ೈ‡ಟು` ೋಗು ೆL ಎಂಬ
ಆತಂಕ<ಂದ ಆ ೕR (ಾ)$ೊಂ)*ಾ# ೆ ಎಂದು ಪ‡W ಕನ,ಡ$ೆ% -ೈ" ಅ-ೇ ೇN*ಾ# ೆ.ೆ
a ೕಸರು Žಾ!PïÖ ŠೆW (ಾ) ೇNರುವ3ದು Tಾಲ (ಾ)$ೊಂ)ದ# Tಾಲ9ಾfೆOಂದ ಸತL ಅಂತ
ೇN Qಾವ ^Šಾರವನು, ನಂಬ9ೇಕು?
ನಂಬ9ೇಕು ಈಗ ೆತLವರವನು, ನಂಬ9ೇ$ಾ
ನಂಬ9ೇ$ಾ ಅಥ ಾ ೆತLವರನು, ^Šಾರ8ೆ
(ಾಡ*ೇ ಇj ೆK`/ೇಷj (ಾ) aೕ•G $ೊ_`ರುವ a ೕಸರನು, ನಂಬ9ೇ$ಾ ಎಂಬುದನು,
$ಾದು ೋ†ಾಣ....."
ೋ†ಾಣ
(Emphasis added)

The tweet is posted; tweet is clarified; and tweet is deleted.

Therefore, it is ununderstandable as to how the ingredients of

Section 353(2) of BNS are met in the case at hand. The
16

interpretation of Section 353(2) need not detain this Court for long

or delve deep into the mater.

11. The Apex Court has interpreted Section 153A which is

ingrediantly identical to an offence under Section 505(2) IPC or

353(2) BNS as is alleged in the case at hand in the cases of JAVED

AHMAD HAJAM v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA1and SHIV

PRASAD SEMWAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND2. The Apex

Court in the case of JAVED AHMAD HAJAM has held as follows:

"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

1
(2024) 4 SCC 156
2
(2024) 7 SCC 555
17

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) 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
18

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 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.
19

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. Now, the time has come to enlighten and educate
our police machinery on the concept of freedom of speech
and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution and the extent of reasonable restraint on their
free speech and expression. They must be sensitised about
the democratic values enshrined in our Constitution.

18. For the same reasons, clause (b) of sub-section
(1) of Section 153-AIPC will not be attracted as what is
depicted on the WhatsApp status of the appellant cannot be
said to be prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony among
various groups as stated therein. Thus, continuation of the
prosecution of the appellant for the offence punishable under
Section 153-AIPC will be a gross abuse of the process of
law."
(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court in the case of SHIV PRASAD SEMWAL 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
20

GunanandJakhmola 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:

"GunanandJakhmola
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
21

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 wellbeing 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
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.
22

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.

29. In Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of
Maharashtra [Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra,
(2007) 5 SCC 1: (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 417], this Court held
that for applying Section 153-AIPC, the presence of two or
more groups or communities is essential, whereas in the
present case, no such groups or communities were referred
to in the news article.

30. The other substantive offence which has
been applied by the investigating agency is Section
504IPC. The said offence can be invoked when the
insult of a person provokes him to break public peace
or to commit any other offence. There is no such
allegation in the FIR that owing to the alleged
offensive post attributable to the appellant, the
complainant was provoked to such an extent that he
could indulge in disturbing the public peace or commit
any other offence. Hence, the FIR lacks the necessary
ingredients of the said offence as well.

31. Since we have found that the foundational
facts essential for constituting the substantive
offences under Sections 153-A and 504IPC are not
available from the admitted allegations of prosecution,
the allegations qua the subsidiary offences under
Sections 34 and 120-BIPC would also be non est.
23

32. The complainant has also alleged in the FIR that
the accused intended to blackmail him by publishing the
news article in question. However, there is no allegation in
the FIR that the accused tried to extract any wrongful gain or
valuable security from the complainant on the basis of the
mischievous/malicious post.

33. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC
(Cri) 426] , this Court examined the principles governing the
scope of exercise of powers by the High Court in a petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under
Section 482CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings
and held as follows : (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102)

"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.
24

(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."

34. Tested on the touchstone of the above principles,
we are of the firm view that allowing continuance of the
proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR bearing No. 31 of
2020 registered at PS Muni Ki Reti, District Tehri Garhwal
against the appellant is nothing but gross abuse of process of
law because the allegations as set out in the FIR do not
disclose necessary ingredients of any cognizable offence.
Hence, the impugned FIR and all proceedings sought to be
taken against the appellant are hereby quashed and set
aside."
(Emphasis supplied)
25

The Apex Court did not permit further investigation even in a crime

before it. The FIR itself was quashed, as the High Court of

Uttarakhand had rejected the petition which challenged the FIR.

12. Much earlier to the afore-quoted judgments in the cases

of JAVED AHMAD HAJAM and SHIV PRASAD SEMWAL, the Apex

Court in the case of PATRICIA MUKHIM v. STATE OF

MEGHALAYA3 interpreting both Sections 153A and 505(2) of the

IPC, which is 353(2) of the BNS has held as follows:

"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:

3
(2021) 15 SCC 35
26

"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 tranquility, or

(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
27

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. Statements conducing to public mischief.--
(1) Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any
statement, rumour or report--
***
(c) with intent to incite, or which is likely to
incite, any class or community of persons to commit
any offence against any other class or community,

shall be punished with imprisonment which may
extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."

9. Only where the written or spoken words have
the tendency of creating public disorder or disturbance
of law and order or affecting public tranquility, 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
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] .

11. In Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P. [Bilal
Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P., (1997) 7 SCC 431 : 1997
SCC (Cri) 1094] , this Court analysed the ingredients
of Sections 153-A and 505(2)IPC. It was held that
28

Section 153-A covers a case where a person by
"words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by
visible representations", promotes or attempts to
promote feeling of enmity, hatred or ill will. Under
Section 505(2) promotion of such feeling should have
been done by making a publication or circulating any
statement or report containing rumour or alarming
news. Mens rea was held to be a necessary ingredient
for the offence under Sections 153-A and 505(2). The
common factor of both the sections being promotion of
feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different
religious or racial or linguistics or religious groups or
castes or communities, it is necessary that at least two
such groups or communities should be involved. It was
further held in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo [Bilal Ahmed
Kaloo v. State of A.P., (1997) 7 SCC 431 : 1997 SCC
(Cri) 1094] that merely inciting the feelings of one
community or group without any reference to any
other community or group cannot attract any of the
two sections. The Court went on to highlight the
distinction between the two offences, holding that
publication of words or representation is sine qua non
under Section 505. It is also relevant to refer to the
judgment of this Court in Ramesh v. Union of
India [Ramesh v. Union of India, (1988) 1 SCC 668 :
1988 SCC (Cri) 266] in which it was held that words
used in the alleged criminal speech should 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. The standard of an
ordinary reasonable man or as they say in English law
"the man on the top of a Clapham omnibus" should be
applied.

12. This Court in Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of
India [Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India, (2014) 11
SCC 477 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 400] had referred to the
Canadian Supreme Court decision in Saskatchewan (Human
Rights Commission) v. William Whatcott[Saskatchewan
(Human Rights Commission) v. William Whatcott, 2013 SCC
OnLine Can SC 6 : (2013) 1 SCR 467] . In that judgment,
the Canadian Supreme Court set out what it considered to be
29

a workable approach in interpreting "hatred" as is used in
legislative provisions prohibiting hate speech. The first test
was for the Courts to apply the hate speech prohibition
objectively and in so doing, ask whether a reasonable
person, aware of the context and circumstances, would view
the expression as exposing the protected group to hatred.
The second test was to restrict interpretation of the
legislative term "hatred" to those extreme manifestations of
the emotion described by the words "detestation" and
"vilification". This would filter out and protect speech which
might be repugnant and offensive, but does not incite the
level of abhorrence, delegitimisation and rejection that risks
causing discrimination or injury. The third test was for the
Courts to focus their analysis on the effect of the expression
at issue, namely, whether it is likely to expose the targeted
person or group to hatred by others. Mere repugnancy of the
ideas expressed is insufficient to constitute the crime
attracting penalty.

13. In the instant case, applying the principles
laid down by this Court as mentioned above, the
question that arises for our consideration is whether
the Facebook post dated 4-7-2020 was intentionally
made for promoting class/community hatred and has
the tendency to provoke enmity between two
communities. A close scrutiny of the Facebook post
would indicate that the agony of the appellant was
directed against the apathy shown by the Chief
Minister of Meghalaya, the Director General of Police
and the DorbarShnong of the area in not taking any
action against the culprits who attacked the non-
tribals youngsters. The appellant referred to the
attacks on non-tribals in 1979. At the most, the
Facebook post can be understood to highlight the
discrimination against non-tribals in the State of
Meghalaya. However, the appellant made it clear that
criminal elements have no community and immediate
action has to be taken against persons who had
indulged in the brutal attack on non-tribal youngsters
playing basketball. The Facebook post read in its
entirety pleads for equality of non-tribals in the State
of Meghalaya. In our understanding, there was no
intention on the part of the appellant to promote
30

class/community hatred. As there is no attempt made
by the appellant to incite people belonging to a
community to indulge in any violence, the basic
ingredients of the offence under Sections 153-A and
505(1)(c) have not been made out. Where allegations
made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are
taken on their face value and accepted in their entirety
do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out
a case against the accused, the FIR is liable to be
quashed [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp
(1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] .

14. India is a plural and multicultural society.
The promise of liberty, enunciated in the Preamble,
manifests itself in various provisions which outline
each citizen's rights; they include the right to free
speech, to travel freely and settle (subject to such
reasonable restrictions that may be validly enacted)
throughout the length and breadth of India. At times,
when in the legitimate exercise of such a right,
individuals travel, settle down or carry on a vocation in
a place where they find conditions conducive, there
may be resentments, especially if such citizens
prosper, leading to hostility or possibly violence. In
such instances, if the victims voice their discontent,
and speak out, especially if the State authorities turn a
blind eye, or drag their feet, such voicing of discontent
is really a cry for anguish, for justice denied -- or
delayed. This is exactly what appears to have
happened in this case.

15. The attack upon six non-locals, carried out
by masked individuals, is not denied by the State; its
reporting too is not denied. The State in fact issued a
press release. There appears to be no headway in the
investigations. The complaint made by the
DorbarShnong, Lawsohtun that the statement of the
appellant would incite communal tension and might
instigate a communal conflict in the entire State is
only a figment of imagination. The fervent plea made
by the appellant for protection of non-tribals living in
the State of Meghalaya and for their equality cannot,
by any stretch of imagination, be categorised as hate
31

speech. It was a call for justice -- for action according
to law, which every citizen has a right to expect and
articulate. Disapprobation of governmental inaction
cannot be branded as an attempt to promote hatred
between different communities. Free speech of the
citizens of this country cannot be stifled by implicating
them in criminal cases, unless such speech has the
tendency to affect public order. The sequitur of above
analysis of the Facebook post made by the appellant is
that no case is made out against the appellant for an
offence under Sections 153-A and 505(1)(c)IPC."

(Emphasis supplied)

Therefore, in the light of the interpretation of Section 353(2) of BNS

/ Section 505(2) or even 153A of the IPC as the case would be, by

the Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgments, permitting further

investigation in the case at hand, when there is nothing to

investigate would become an abuse of the process of law. Even if

the facts narrated are considered to become the ingredients, it

would not make out an offence.

13. The learned State Public Prosecutor-I has sought to place

reliance upon the history of the death of Rudrappa and other

factors. Those would not become necessary even to be noticed in

the case at hand, as those facts obtaining qua the lands of

Rudrappa, who died. It has nothing to do with the present crime.
32

14. Finding no ingredients of the allegations and to prevent

miscarriage of justice, I deem it appropriate to exercise my

jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and obliterate the

crime.

15. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.

(ii) FIR in Crime No.99 of 2024 registered in CEN Crime Police Station, Haveri and pending before the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) & CJM, Haveri stands quashed.

Sd/-

(M. NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Bkp CT:MJ

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court