In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court quashed a criminal case filed against two men accused of inciting communal tension by shouting slogans in a mosque. The case, Keerthan Kumar & Anr vs. State of Karnataka, revolved around allegations of religious provocation. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, presiding over the matter, held that the mere act of shouting “Jai Sriram” inside a mosque does not automatically amount to an offence under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) unless it is proven that there was deliberate and malicious intent to insult religious beliefs.
Background of the Case
The case stemmed from an incident that occurred on the night of 24th September 2023, in Dakshina Kannada. The complaint, filed by C.M. Hyder Ali, stated that unknown individuals entered a mosque in Kadaba, shouted “Jai Sriram,” and threatened the community. The complaint further noted that Hindus and Muslims had lived harmoniously in the region, and the actions of the accused were intended to disrupt communal peace. The Kadaba Police registered the case under multiple sections of the IPC, including Sections 447 (criminal trespass), 295A (deliberate acts to outrage religious feelings), 505 (public mischief), and 506 (criminal intimidation).
The petitioners, Keerthan Kumar and Sachin Kumar, were identified during the investigation and accused of the aforementioned crimes. They approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR and criminal proceedings initiated against them in Crime No. 86 of 2023.
Legal Issues Involved
1. Section 295A (IPC): The main contention was whether the actions of the petitioners amounted to a deliberate and malicious attempt to insult the religious beliefs of a community. The petitioners argued that shouting “Jai Sriram” inside a mosque does not meet the threshold required under Section 295A of the IPC unless there is malicious intent.
2. Section 447 (IPC): The issue of criminal trespass was raised. The petitioners’ counsel argued that a mosque, being a public place, cannot be subjected to charges of trespass for mere entry.
3. Sections 505 and 506 (IPC): These sections relate to public mischief and criminal intimidation, respectively. The petitioners contended that there was no evidence of public disorder or intimidation resulting from the incident, and therefore, these charges were inapplicable.
Court’s Decision
After hearing the arguments presented by both sides, the court found that the ingredients necessary to invoke Section 295A of the IPC were absent. Justice Nagaprasanna, referring to past judgments of the Supreme Court, noted that Section 295A penalizes only those acts carried out with a “deliberate and malicious intention” to outrage religious feelings. The court observed:
“It is ununderstandable as to how if someone shouts ‘Jai Sriram’ it would outrage the religious feeling of any class. When the complainant himself states that Hindus and Muslims are living in harmony in the area, the incident by no stretch of imagination can result in antimony.”
The court further held that the complaint did not allege any public disorder or mischief under Section 505, and there was no credible threat or intimidation as required under Section 506. Justice Nagaprasanna highlighted that mere slogans, without any intent to cause disruption or harm, cannot attract criminal charges under these sections.
“Permitting further proceedings against these petitioners would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.”
In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, quashing the entire proceedings in Crime No. 86 of 2023 pending before the II Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada.
Lawyers Involved
– Petitioners’ Advocate: Sri B.S. Sachin represented Keerthan Kumar and Sachin Kumar.
– Respondent’s Counsel: Smt. R. Sowmya, High Court Government Pleader, appeared on behalf of the State of Karnataka.
