Karnataka High Court
Sayed Mohammad Tanveer Peera vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 December, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.201448/2021
BETWEEN:
SAYED MOHAMMAD TANVEER PEER ZADE
S/O SAYED BRUHANUDDIN HUSSAIN PEERZADE (HASHMI)
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: RELIGIOUS SCHOLAR
R/O HAJARAT HASEEMPEER DARGA
STATE ROAD, VIJAYPUR
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SRINIVAS B NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH AT KALABURAGI - 585 107
THROUGH GHANDI CHOWK POLICE STATION
VIJAYAPUR
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GURURAJ V HASILKAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING THIS COURT TO QUASH ENTIRE
CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.7315/2019 ON THE FILE OF JMFC
I COURT, VIJAYAPURA, CR.NO.207/2018 OF GANDHI CHOWK
POLICE STATION AND ETC.
2
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant who is working as a Civil Head Constable in the Gandi Chowka police station in the complaint alleged that on 16.06.2018, on account of Ramzan festival, the complainant and other were deputed on Bandobast duty and when they are in duty, prayer was started and after completion of the prayer, this petitioner started addressing the public and while addressing the public, he made provoking statement creating enmity between the groups on the ground of religion, race, place, caste and language. Hence, the offence punishable under Sections 506 and 117 of IPC and Section 7 of Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') were 3 invoked. After the investigation, Section 505(2) of IPC was invoked.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument vehemently contend that in order to invoke Section 505(2) of IPC, permission is necessary to invoke the said offence and also the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the invoked offence is also under Section 153 of IPC and no permission is sought. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of BHAJANLAL vs STATE OF HARYANA and prays this Court to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The counsel submit that the contents of the complaint also does not attract any offence for creating hatredness between the religion and hence, continuing of the case amounts to an abuse of process.
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State would submit that the very contents of the complaint is very clear that it creates hatredness 4 among the religion and also made the speech of taking away the life of the persons belongs to other religion and hence, the very speech attracts Sections 117 and 506 of IPC and also Section 7 of the Act of 1988 and apart from that it attract Section 505(2) of IPC. He further submit that the permission was sought before registering the case on 21.08.2018 and the Deputy Commissioner gave permission on 25.11.2019 and hence, invoked Section 505(2) of IPC and there was a compliance.
5. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material on record it discloses that the contents of the complaint where there is a specific allegation is made against the petitioner with regard to creation of hatredness among the religion, permission was also taken before filing the charge sheet for the offence under Section 505(2) of IPC. The police at the time of investigation, firstly, invoked Sections 506 and 117 of IPC and Section 7 of the Act of 1988 and later on Section 505(2) of IPC was invoked. When permission was taken 5 before invoking Section 505(2) of IPC and having considered the contents of the complaint as well as the material collected by the IO, the very contention that there was no any such ingredients of offence under Section 505(2) of IPC does not attracts cannot be accepted. The learned High Court Government Pleader for the State would submit that while filing the charge sheet for Section 505(2) of IPC, permission was obtained from the concerned Authority. The allegation is that the statement was made creating or promoting enmity, hatredness between the different groups of people. Hence, taken into consideration of the contents of the speech and the statement of the petitioner, it is clear that the same is nothing but creating enmity and hatredness between the religion. Hence, the very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it does not attract the ingredients of Section 505(2) of IPC cannot be accepted.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the principles laid down in the judgment reported in 6 (2007)5 SCC 1. The Apex Court held in paragraph 18 that it is necessary that at least two such groups or communities should be involved. The same is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Another decision relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner that (1997)7 SCC 431 wherein an observation is made that whoever makes, publishes or circulates in Section 505(2) must be interpreted as supplementary to each other and not disjunctively and the same is also not applicable to the facts of the case on hand and the same is discussed in paragraph 10 of the judgment and having considered the principles laid down in the judgment particularly discussion made in paragraphs 10 and 12 with regard to the distinction between the two offences is concerned and having considered the factual aspect of the case, the same is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The other judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is 2021 SCC Online SC 258 wherein in paragraph 11, the Apex Court also discussed the judgment of the earlier judgment of Bilal's case with regard to 7 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 is also not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
7. The Court has to look into the facts of each case and in the case on hand, the specific allegations are made against this petitioner is that in his speech he created hatredness among the groups and also even he had gone into making the speech to take away the life of the persons who objects for their spiritual formalities. When such being the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition is rejected.8
In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2021 for stay does not survive for consideration and accordingly, it is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE SAN