Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Mohd. Khalid Hussain vs The State, Through S.H.O. on 4 February, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(1)ALD(CRI)482, 2000(1)ALT(CRI)561, 2000CRILJ2949
Author: Vaman Rao
Bench: Vaman Rao
JUDGMENT Vaman Rao, J.
1. Heard both sides.
2. This petition under section 482 of CrPC seeks quashing of the proceedings in Crime No.230 of 1997 registered at Asifnagar, Hyderabad for an offence under Section 153(A) of IPC.
3. The first information report in question appears to have been registered suo motu by the police as the offence is said to have been committed in the presence of police officer in connection with protest rally stand for 6.12.1997 against the demolition of babri masjid.
4. According to the allegations in the first information report, while Inspector of Police Mr.A.Laxmanna was moving in the area concerned on 5.12.1997 at about 10.30 a.m., they said to have noticed the petitioner herein, Mohd. Khalid Hussain, appealing to the people of muslim community who had gathered there for reconstruction of the mosque at the original place. It is further stated 'he was telling in such a manner which promotes enmity between two communities on religion basis and thereby instigating the community to indulge in violence and to disturb the peace and communal harmony accusing other community as a responsible in demolition of Babri masjid on 6.12.1992'. On this the petitioner-accused was taken into custody and a case in crime no.230 of 1997 under section 153(A) IPC read with Section 7(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is firstly, there is no offence alleged which could be referred to the so-called 7(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. In fact, the learned public prosecutor had also conceded that there is no such provision like section 7(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, which could be related to the offence alleged in this case.
6. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the facts alleged do not constitute an offence under Section 153(A) of IPC. For convenience of refence, Section 153(A) of IPC is extracted below:
153.A. (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) xxxx'
6. The essence of the offence under Section 153-A of IPC is promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence etc. and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. The acts constituting this offence are promoting such enmity or doing such prejudicial acts by words either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise.
7. Thus, the emphasis is on the mode and the action by which attempt is made 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 or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities.
8. In this case, the police officer at whose instance the first information report was recorded is said to be an eyewitness to the alleged offence. But, he has failed to mention the words uttered by the accused. The first information records only records the opinion or the conclusion drawn by the police officer but not the words or the other acts attributing to the accused on the basis of which he has formed such a opinion or drawn such conclusions.
9. To ascertain whether an offence as defined under Section 153(A) of IPC has been committed or not, it is for the court to examine the words either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations and come to a conclusion whether they have a tendency to promote or attempts to promote on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other group etc. disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities . In the absence of any material as to the actual words uttered by the accused or the acts committed by the accused, the allegations must be held to be extremely vague.
10. To ascertain whether apart from the First Information Report, there is any material by way of recording statements of witnesses under Section 161 of CrPC. Opportunity was given to the learned Public Prosecutor to obtain necessary information from the investigating agency. The learned public prosecutor fairly concedes that the investigating agency have not cared to response to his enquiries in this regard.
11. Considering this aspect of the matter, it has to be held that the allegations appearing in the first information report do not satisfy the ingredients of offence under Section 153-A of IPC.
12. In view of this, the proceedings in Crime No.230 of 1997 on the file of Asifnagar police station deserve to be and are hereby quashed.