The Supreme Court of India has ruled that calling someone ‘Miyan-Tiyan’ or ‘Pakistani’ may be in poor taste but does not constitute a criminal offense. The apex court acquitted 80-year-old Hari Nandan Singh of all charges under Sections 353, 298, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), overturning the orders of the lower courts.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an incident in Bokaro, Jharkhand, where an Urdu Translator and Acting Clerk (informant) at the Sub-Divisional Office, Chas, lodged a First Information Report (FIR) against Hari Nandan Singh (appellant) under Bokaro Sector-IV P.S. Case No. 140 of 2020. The FIR alleged that Singh had obstructed an official while performing his duties and used communal slurs, including referring to the informant as “Miyan-Tiyan” and “Pakistani”.
The informant claimed that he had gone to Singh’s residence on November 18, 2020, along with a peon, to personally deliver documents as per the directive of the Additional Collector-cum-First Appellate Authority. While Singh initially refused to accept the documents, he eventually took them but allegedly insulted the informant on religious grounds and attempted to create a dispute.
Following the complaint, the police filed a charge sheet against Singh under Sections 353 (Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of duty), 298 (Uttering words with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings), and 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) of the IPC.
Judicial Proceedings
After the charges were framed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, Singh filed an application for discharge under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). However, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bokaro, rejected his plea on March 24, 2022, ruling that sufficient material existed for framing charges under Sections 353, 298, and 504 IPC, while dropping charges under Sections 323 and 406 IPC.
Singh then moved a criminal revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Bokaro, which was dismissed on February 20, 2023. Subsequently, he filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1094 of 2023 before the Jharkhand High Court, which upheld the previous orders and refused to quash the criminal proceedings on August 28, 2023.
Supreme Court’s Verdict
A Supreme Court bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma heard the appeal (Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2025, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 452 of 2024) and delivered its judgment on February 11, 2025. The court examined the legal provisions invoked in the case and ruled in favor of Singh, stating that no criminal offense was made out against him.
Key Legal Findings
The Supreme Court observed that:
No Assault or Use of Force: Section 353 IPC requires an element of assault or criminal force against a public servant in the discharge of duty. The court found no evidence of any such act by Singh.
No Wounding of Religious Sentiments: Section 298 IPC pertains to deliberate actions intended to wound religious feelings. The bench noted that while Singh’s words were inappropriate, they did not meet the threshold of a criminal offense.
No Provocation of Public Disturbance: Section 504 IPC requires that the accused’s actions provoked a breach of peace. The court held that the alleged statements did not lead to any public disorder or instigation of violence.
Court’s Observation
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, stated:
“The statements made by the appellant were in poor taste and inappropriate, but they do not amount to wounding religious sentiments or causing a public disturbance. Criminal law should not be used as a tool to settle personal scores.”
The court further emphasized the need to protect free speech while discouraging unwarranted criminalization of casual remarks. It cautioned against misuse of legal provisions for personal grievances.
Acquittal and Final Orders
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and quashed the criminal proceedings against Hari Nandan Singh. The appeal was allowed, and all charges against him were dismissed.
