Jharkhand High Court
Sunil Anand & Ors. vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr. on 16 February, 2017
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 280 of 2006
---
1. Sunil Anand son of Shri Thankur Singh, resident of House No. 113,
B-Block, Sonari, P.O. and P.S. Sonari, Town Jamshedpur, District
Singhbhum, Jharkhand
2. Acharya Chandra Deo Sinha son of Late Bishnudhari Sinha, resident
of House No. 3, Road No. 3, Zone 9, Birsa Nagar, Jamshedpur, P.O.
and P.S. Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand
3. Acharya Manav Mitrananda Avt son of Shrii Shrii Anandamurtijii,
resident of Anand Marga Ashram, at and P.O. Gadhra, P.S. Parsudih,
Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Dhananyay Kumar Srivastava, sub Inspector of Police, Police Station
Sonari, P.O. Sonari, District East Singhbhum... ... Opp. Parties
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Tapas Roy, A.P.P.
---
05/16.02.2017Heard Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Tapas Roy, learned A.P.P. for the State.
In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Sonari P. S. Case No. 106 of 2005 corresponding to G. R. Case No. 2279 of 2005 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 153(A), 153(C ), 290, 295(A), 188, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are the followers of religious sects of Ananda Marga. It has been stated that the Tandava Dance was performed in an enclosed area and the same would not constitute an offence. Learned counsel has further submitted that in the case of the other members of the religious sect the entire criminal proceedings have been quashed in connection with Cr.M.P. No. 1459 of 2013.
Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. It appears that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the judgment passed in the case of Acharya Chandradeo Sinha @ Chandradeo Sinha & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand in Cr.M.P. No. 1459 of 2013. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:-
-2-"For better appreciation of the submissions advanced on behalf of the State, one needs to take notice of the provision as contained in Section 295(A) of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as follows:-
"295-A. Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. - whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a terms which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. "
From its perusal, it appears that whoever deliberately and with malicious intention does an act of outraging of the religious feelings of any class, offence under Section 295A gets attracted. Therefore, most important ingredient for attracting the offence is deliberate and malicious intention to cause hurt to the religious feelings of any class. The case of the prosecution itself is that the religious rituals like that of Tandav Dance was performed in an enclosed area and not in the public place. In that event, act of the accused can never be said to be deliberate nor can be said to have been done with malicious intention. Further, it be stated that Tandav Dance seems to be an essential part of the religious right, but it has been prohibited by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to be performed in public places, which would appear from the observation made in Para - 18 of the decision referred to herein above. Thus, the question of committing offence under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, in the facts and circumstances stated above, never does arise. Same view has been taken by this Court earlier in a case of "Acharya Chandradeo Sinha @ Chandradeo Sinha & Others- versus-State of Jharkhand, [Cr.Rev. No. 488 of 2009]", which does appear from para - 9 of the said judgment, which reads as follows:-
"9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and the materials referred to from the case diary that has been brought on record I find that the petitioners for the alleged offence under Sections 290/295A/420/34 I.P.C. The witnesses were consistent that that demonstration of Tandav Dance was confined within the periphery of Ashram and not within public view and for that prior permission of the local authority, therefore, was not required as the same was confined to the viewers who had faith on the principles of Anand Marg. The informant relied upon the news item Sonari P.S. Case No. 106 of 2005, including the order dated 26/11/2012 published in the print media with the photograph and that such demonstration was telecasted through electronic media but the fact remains that he dance was not organized at public place or a public road and there was no -3- expressed prohibition from its coverage in the print media or electronic media. The Hon'ble Apex Court had given certain liberty in case of organizing procession and even they were permitted to carry trident and skull but with the permission of local administration. In the instant case since it was admitted that the entire demonstration or the performance was made within the periphery of Ashram I do not find the ingredients of Sections 290/295A/420/34 I.P.C. are attracted against the petitioners so as to call them to face criminal prosecution. I find merit in this petition, accordingly, the order impugned dated 05/05/2009 of taking cognizance in Parsudih P.S. Case No. 138 of 2005 corresponding to G. R. No. 2282 of 2005 is set aside. The petitioners are discharged from their criminal liabilities."
Further, going into the matter and taking into account the allegation, upon which the case has been lodged, question of committing offence under Sections 153A, 153B, 166, 167, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, does not arise as the allegation never constitute any of such offence. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding of Sonari P.S. Case No. 106 of 2005, including the impugned order dated 26/11/2012, taking cognizance, is hereby quashed. "
Since the case of the petitioners stands on the similar footing to that of the petitioners in Cr.M.P. 1459 of 2013, the entire criminal proceedings as against the petitioners in connection with in connection with Sonari P. S. Case No. 106 of 2005 corresponding to G. R. Case No. 2279 of 2005 is, hereby, quashed.
This application is allowed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Umesh/-