Karnataka High Court
Sri Pranavananda Rama Swamiji vs State Of Karnataka on 5 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1532 OF 2019
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.692 OF 2019
IN CRL.P.NO.1532/2019:
BETWEEN:
SRI. PRANAVANANDA RAMA SWAMIJI
S/O NARAYANA NANBIAR,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT BASAVESHWARA MATA,
AREMALAPURA VILLAGE,
RANI BANNUR, HAVERI DISTRICT-581 115
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DHARMAPAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MANGALORE NORTH POLICE STATION,
PIN-574141
REPT. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT BANGALORE-01
2. SRI. SURESH BHAT
SHANTIGAGI SANGATANEGALA OKKUTA,
KARNATAKA KOMU SOUHARDA VEDIKE,
B.H. BANGERA HALL,
BEHIND RTO POLICE LINE,
PANDESHWARA,
2
MANGALORE CITY-574141
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYAM, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. CLIFTON D'ROZARIO, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF ISSUING SUMMONS BY TAKING
COGNIZANCE DATED 24.05.2014 AND TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
CHARGE SHEET SUBMITTED AGAINST THE PETITIONER BY THE
1st RESPONDENT POLICE ON THE BASIS OF A COMPLAINT
LODGED BY THE 2nd RESPONDENT DATED 24.09.2013 IN SPLIT
UP DATED 22.05.2017 IN C.C.NO.1647/2017 (MAIN
C.C.NO.1515/2014) FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 153A, 501B, 109 OF IPC WHICH IS PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE II-JMFC, MANGALORE.
IN CRL.P.NO.692/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SHRAVAN KUMAR RAIKAR
S/O RAM RAO RAIKAR,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
VEERA SAVARKAR ROAD,
GANGAVATHI,
KOPPAL DISTRICT-583227
NOW PRESENTLY:
R/AT SILVER HOUSE, MAIN ROAD,
GANGAVATHI, KOPPAL DISTRICT
PIN-583227.
2. SRI HARISH ACHARYA
S/O LATE A.K. GANGADHAR,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
VINAYA VINAYAKA JEWELRY,
MALAKA, NO.65, CONVENT ROAD,
NEAR MUTHAPPA TEMPLE, MADIKERI,
3
KODAGU DISTRICT-571201.
NOW PRESENTLY:
R/AT 13/12/1, GOWLI STREET,
MADIKRI, KODAGU DISTRICT,
PIN-571201
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. DHARMAPAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MANGALORE NORTH POLICE STATION,
PIN-574141
REPT. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT BANGALORE -01.
2. SRI. SURESH BHAT
SHANTIGAGI SANGATANEGALA OKKUTA,
KARNATAKA KOMU SOUHARDA VEDIKE,
B.H.BANGERA HALL,
BEHIND RTO POLICE LINE,
PANDESHWARA, MANGALORE CITY,
PIN-574141.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYAM, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. MAITREYI KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF ISSUING SUMMONS BY TAKING COGNIZANCE
DATED 24.05.2014 AND TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET
SUBMITTED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT POLICE ON THE BASIS OF A COMPLAINT LODGED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24.09.2013, IN
C.C.NO.1515/2014 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
4
UNDER SECTIONS 153A, 501B AND 109 OF IPC WHICH IS
PENDING ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C.(II COURT), MANGALURU.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDER ON 28.08.2023 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner (accused No.1) in Crl.P.No.1532/2019 has challenged the prosecution launched against him in split up C.C.No.1647/2017 pending trial before the JMFC - II Court at Mangaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') and the order dated 24.05.2014 taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 153A, 501B, 109 of IPC.
2. Crl.P.No.692/2019 is filed to quash the prosecution launched against the petitioners, who were arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 6 in C.C.No.1515/2014 pending trial before the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Section 153A, 501B, 109 of IPC.
3. The respondent No.1 registered Crime No.194/2013 against the petitioners and others on the 5 basis of information provided by the respondent No.2 on 23.09.2013, that on 15.09.2013, a press conference was held at Woodlands Hotel, where the accused claimed that the fighting sprit amongst youth to protect cows, women was waning and therefore, to promote valour of a Kshatriya amongst them, 5000 youth would be administered oath by a sword on 25.10.2013. It was also stated that the youth would be instilled courage to fight on the street. The respondent No.2 alleged that this amounted to taking law into hands and to incite violence by distributing prohibited weapons and thereby, divide the society on communal lines. He alleged that this was a concerted effort to promote communal violence. He claimed that the press conference was published in the newspapers and telecast on television. He alleged that this was a criminal offence and therefore, requested respondent No.1 to take suitable action. The respondent No.1 registered Crime No.194/2013 for the offence punishable under Section 153A of IPC and took up investigation and filed a charge-sheet for the offences 6 punishable under Sections 153A, 501(1)(B), 109 of IPC. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and registered C.C.No.1515/2014.
4. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.1532/2019 was arraigned as accused No.1 and as he could not be secured, the case against him was split-up and C.C.No.1647/2017 was registered against him.
5. Being aggrieved by the order taking cognizance and the proceedings initiated against them, the petitioners have filed these petitions.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that a bare perusal of the complaint lodged would indicate beyond doubt that an offence under Sections 153A, 505(1)(b) and Section 109 of IPC is not made out. He submitted that the respondent No.2 could not allege that the petitioners promoted enmity between groups or religion and promoted any feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will or any acts prejudicial to the maintenance 7 of communal harmony. He therefore, contended that the prosecution launched against them is a clear misuse and abuse of process of law. He contended that an offence under Section 505(1)(b) of IPC is also not attracted. He contended that a sword is only a symbol of valour, which is carried by Nepali Gurkhas and Sikhs, which is held to be not harmful to any community or religion. Therefore, he contended that Section 153A of IPC is not attracted.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the offence committed by the petitioners is grave and severe, where the investigating officer has filed a charge-sheet and therefore, this Court should not exercise jurisdiction to quash the prosecution, when there is no illegality. He relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited vs. State of Maharashtra and others [AIR Online 2021 SC 192] and Central Bureau of Investigation vs Aryan Singh and others [AIR 2023 SC 1987]. He submitted that in 8 similar circumstances, in the case of Mohammed Shariff vs. State of Karnataka and Others [Crl.P.No.3786/2020], a Coordinate Bench of this Court held that on a close reading of Section 153A of IPC, accused must be making the statement with an intention and the said statement must provoke or promote feeling of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious or racial or other language or regional groups or castes. He contended that whenever there was a discreet reference to particular group by innuendo, the question whether the person had an intention to incite a group or not, is a matter which has to be considered only at the time of trial. He therefore, contended that a perusal of the press statement and the consequent conduct of the petitioners disclosed beyond doubt that it was to incite the youth to take up arms against another group. He further contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tehseen S. Poonawala vs. Union of India and others [AIR 2018 SC 3354], while considering the incidents of lynching and mob violence by cow vigilante group, had issued many 9 preventive, remedial and punitive measures and therefore, he submitted that this Court should not turn a blind eye to consequences that may erupt due to provocative speeches by persons such as the petitioners. He also referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shaheen Abdulla vs. Union of India [W.P.(C) No.940/2022], where the police were directed to register suo moto case against the offenders, who commit offences punishable under Sections 153A, 153B, 295A and 505 of IPC. The learned counsel contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court directed that action shall be initiated against any person irrespective of the religion that he belongs to, so that the secular character of Bharat as is envisaged by the preamble of the Constitution of India is preserved and protected. He also referred to another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India [W.P.(C) No.943/2021], where the Hon'ble Apex Court had directed that suo moto action shall be initiated to register cases, even if no complaint is forthcoming and proceed against the 10 offenders who commit offences under Sections 153A, 153B, 295A and 505 of IPC. The learned counsel therefore, submits that allowing persons such as the petitioners to incite the public to take up arms, is a clear indication that the petitioners have exhorted the youth to take up arms against another religion. Thus, he contends that the petitioners are bound to face the trial.
8. The learned High Court Government Pleader supported the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and contended that the press conference held by the petitioners at Woodlands Hotel on 15.09.2013 was with a clear intention to incite the youth against another community and therefore, the petitioners are bound to establish their innocence by facing the trial.
9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and learned High Court Government Pleader.
11
10. A perusal of the press release dated 16.09.2013 shows that the Akhila Bharata Hindu Mahasabha had proposed to organize "Khadga Deekshe"
(oath by sword) Programme for over 5,000 Hindu youth on October 25th in Mangalore. The purpose of the "Deekshe"
was to prevent attacks on the Hindu religion. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.1532/2019 addressed the press meet and claimed that the Deekshe will instill valour to fight for the cause of religion and standing against various injustice and attacks that are waged against the religion. He said that the Government is unable to protect the Hindu religion, culture and tradition and that Hindu Mahasabha would teach a lesson to the miscreants targeting it.
11. The statements of witnesses recorded by the investigating officer show that none of them had attended the press conference and there were no video or photographs of the press conference but their statements were all hearsay. All the witnesses have claimed that the press conference was designed to incite violence by arming 12 the youth with swords. However, there is no material collected by the investigating officer about the distribution of swords at the press conference and no swords were seized.
12. Be that as it may, even if the press release is perused, it is claimed that the intention of the programme was to instill a sense of pride and to fight for the cause of religion and stand against various injustice and attacks that are being waged against the religion. Though by innuendo it could be held that the petitioners were referring to threat on the Hindu religion by other communities, there is no specific reference to any group or religion in the press release. In this regard, it is profitable to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo vs. State of A.P. [(1997) 7 SCC 431], wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:-
"15. The common feature in both sections being promotion of feeling of enmity, hatred or ill will "between different" religious or racial or linguistic or regional groups or castes and 13 communities, it is necessary that at least two such groups or communities should be involved. Merely inciting the feeling of one community or group without any reference to any other community or group cannot attract either of the two sections."
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held, "The common ingredient in both the offences is promoting feeling of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious or racial or linguistic or regional groups or castes or communities. 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 such feeling. Under Section 505(2), promotion of such feelings should have been done by making and publishing or circulating any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news."
14. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mohammed Ataulla A and others vs. State of 14 Karnataka and another [2020 SCC Online Kar 1682], in similar circumstances held, "10. Coming to the offence alleged under section 153A IPC, is concerned, law is now well settled that in order to bring an action under the said section, the acts alleged against the accused must be intended to promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or religious groups, or castes or communities. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bilal Ahmed's case referred above, in order to constitute the ingredient of said offence, it is necessary that atleast two such groups or communities should be involved. Merely inciting the feelings of one community or group without any reference to any other community or group cannot attract either of the offence under section 153A of IPC.
11. In the instant case, there are no allegations whatsoever that the petitioners have committed any acts with intent to promote feelings of hatred between different religious groups, rather, the very basis of the allegations is that the petitioners were behaving in such a manner that on seeing them, Hindus should get 15 frightened and should run away from the village. This is the imagination or mere assumption of the complainant and not the actual commission of act by anyone of the petitioners. As a result, even the basic ingredient of the offence under section 153A IPC is not satisfied so as to proceed with the investigation against the petitioners."
15. CWs.4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are cited as eyewitnesses in the charge-sheet. All of them in one voice claimed that accused No.1 had proposed to administer oath to 5000 youth to stop cow slaughter and protect women and Hindu religion. However, all of them claimed that they were not in possession of the video clipping or photos of the press meet addressed by accused No.1. No one has spoken whether 5000 youth were administered oath and if yes, who had participated and whether there was any justification not to prosecute them. There is no reference to any rival group or to any religion. There is no reference to inducement to commit any offence against the State or to the public tranquility. Thus, it is difficult to accept that the petitioners were involved in the 16 commission of offences punishable under Section 153A or 505(1)(b) or 109 of IPC. It is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Manzar Sayeed Khan vs. State of Maharashtra and another [(2007) 5 SCC 1], where it was held, "16. Section 153-A IPC, as extracted hereinabove, covers a case where a person by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities or acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony or is likely to disturb the public tranquility. The gist of the offence is the intention to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of people. The intention to cause disorder or incite the people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence under Section 153-A IPC and the prosecution has to prove prima facie the existence of mens rea on the part of the accused. The intention has to be judged primarily by the language of the book and the 17 circumstances in which the book 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."
16. Yet another disturbing fact that can be gathered from the charge-sheet is that articles published by several newspapers in Mangaluru were not in line with the press release. The investigating officer has collected newspaper reports to justify the commission of offences by the petitioners. Therefore, it cannot be held that the petitioners were promoting enmity between groups or religions and hence, an offence under Section 153A or 505(1)(b) or 109 of IPC was not attracted and therefore, the instant prosecution against the petitioners is liable to be halted.
17. Hence, these petitions are allowed. The prosecution of the petitioner/accused No.1 in split up 18 C.C.No.1647/2017 (main C.C.No.1515/2014) and petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 6 in C.C.No.1515/2014 pending trial before the JMFC -II Court, Mangaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 153A, 505(1)(b) [wrongly shown as 501(B)] and Section 109 of IPC are quashed in so far as petitioners are concerned.
Sd/-
JUDGE PMR