Sri R Riyaz vs The State Of Karnataka By on 25 January, 2021

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri R Riyaz vs The State Of Karnataka By on 25 January, 2021

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                          BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

            CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5796 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

Sri R.Riyaz
S/o late Rasool Saheb
Aged 47 years
R/a No.G-12, BSR Sai Palace
Apartment, Viratnagar
Bommanahalli
Bengaluru-560068.
                                                ... Petitioner
(By Sri Afsar Ahmed,S, Advocate)

AND:

  1. The State of Karnataka
     By Bommanahalli Police Station
     Bengaluru City
     Rep. by the State Public Prosecutor
     High Court of Karnataka
     Bengaluru-560001.

  2. Sri Mohammaed Shaff
     S/o Imam Sab
     Aged about 36 years
     R/a No.76/2, 3rd Cross, Madina Nagar
     Mangammanapalya
     Bommanahalli
     Bengaluru-560068.
                                            .. Respondents
(By Smt.Namitha Mahesh.B.G., HCGP for R1,
    R2 is served)
                          -----
                                      2



      This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the
entire proceedings/investigation in Cr.No.154/2020 for the
offence punishable under Section 505(2) of IPC, 1860, pending
on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City
and etc.,

      This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this day,
the court made the following through video conference :

                           ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying this Court to quash the entire proceedings/investigation in Crime No.154/2020 registered by 1st respondent-Police for the offence punishable under Section 505(2) of IPC.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that after pronouncement of the judgment of Ayodhya's case by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the Facebook regarding the judgment in between the complainant and this petitioner, there was exchange of message that the judgment is in favour of a particular religion and not in favour of the country. However, it is mentioned that they should obey the judgment of the Supreme Court. Based on the complaint, a case has been registered for the above offence. 3

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the argument would submit that the reference which has been made in the Facebook does not invoke the offence under Section 505(2) of IPC and unfortunately, the respondent- Police at the instance of the Deputy Commissioner, crime was registered after 23 days. The counsel would contend that the same is the opinion which he has right to express under Section 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The counsel would also submit that the Facebook message was also withdrawn.

4. The learned HCGP would submit that earlier this Court directed to secure the material and the same is placed before the Court.

5. Having perused the records, it is seen that message was exchanged between the two persons. Having perused the contents of the same, ultimately it is stated that they are bound by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Taking note of the withdrawal of the message and taking into note of the Facebook exchanges, I am of the opinion that it does not attract Section 505(2) of the IPC 4 since ultimately he say they are bound to obey the Supreme Court Judgment.

In view of the discussion made above, I made the following :-

ORDER The petition is allowed. The case registered in Crime No.154/2020 by 1st respondent-Police against the petitioner is hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE ssb

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court