Karnataka High Court
Sri Anand Kumar H R vs The State Of Karnataka By on 13 December, 2023
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:45668
CRL.P No. 11623 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11623 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. ANAND KUMAR H.R.,
S/O RAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT NO.88, HUNASIKOTE VILLAGE,
MALUR TALUK, KONDASETTIHALLI,
KOLAR - 563 137.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MAHESH S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
MALUR POLICE STATION,
KOLAR DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
Digitally signed by B
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR 2. JAYASHANKAR,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
S/O THIMMAIAH,
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT OLD MASTI ROAD,
NEAR PWD OFFICE, MALUR RAILWAY STATION,
KOLAR, MALUR - 563 137.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATASATHYANARAYAN A., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. NAGARAJA R., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.175/2020 FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 295-A, 505(2) OF IPC PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALUR, KOLAR.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:45668
CRL.P No. 11623 of 2022
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The registration of the first information report for the offences punishable under Sections 295A, 505(2) of IPC is impugned in this petition.
2. The second respondent lodged the FIR alleging that the petitioner herein had shared a message in the group on the facebook account making certain derogatory remarks on RSS and Shriram. The message shared by the petitioner reads as follows:
"F RSS UÀÄ ÁªÀÄgÀÄ ±Ál gÁªÀÄ ±Ál gÁªÀÄ CAvÀ ºÁQÛvÁðgÉ C Áé? F ±Ál gÁªÀÄ JAzÀgÉ AiÀiÁgÀÄ?"
3. The petitioner/accused No.1 and respondent No.2 are present before this Court and they have filed an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for compounding of the offences stating that they have amicably resolved the dispute among themselves with the intervention of common friends and well wishers and respondent No.2 has agreed to withdraw all the allegations against the petitioner.
4. The application is placed on record.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra Singh Dhoni Vs. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar and Another reported in (2017) 7 SCC 760 has held as follows:
In the next place Sec.295A does not penalise any and every act of insult to or attempt to insult the -3- NC: 2023:KHC:45668 CRL.P No. 11623 of 2022 religion or the religious beliefs of a class of citizens but it penalises only those acts of insults to or those varieties of attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of a class of citizens, which are perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class. Insults to religion offered unwittingly or carelessly or without any deli. berate or malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of that class do not come within the section. It only Punishes the aggravated form of insult to religion when it is perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class. The calculated tendency of this aggravated form of insult is clearly to disrupt the public order and the section, which penalises such activities, is well within the protection of cl. (2) of Art. 19 as being a law imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(a). Having regard to the ingredients of the offence created by the impugned section, there cannot, in our opinion, be any possibility of this law being applied for purposes not sanctioned by the Constitution. In other words, the language employed in the section is not wide enough to cover restrictions both within and without the limits of constitutionally permissible legislative action affecting the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(s) and consequently, the question of severability does not arise and the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner have no application to this case."
"The Constitution Bench has further clarified that the said provision only punishes the aggravated form of insult to religion when it is perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class. Emphasis has been laid on the calculated tendency of the said aggravated form of insult and also to disrupt the public order to invite the penalty."
6. Though the offences alleged against the petitioner are cognizable and non compoundable, however, having regard -4- NC: 2023:KHC:45668 CRL.P No. 11623 of 2022 to the fact that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute among themselves and respondent No.2 having no objection for quashing the impugned FIR, it would be a futile exercise, if the petitioner is subjected to investigation, since the probability of the police filing the charge sheet is unlikely, in view of the settlement. Therefore, the continuation of the investigation will be an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER i. Criminal petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned first information report in Cr.No.175/2020 registered by the Malur Police Station, stands quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE MCR