'Everything Can't Be Countenanced': Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Over 'Obscene Depiction' Of Hindu Deities In WhatsApp Group

The Karnataka High Court refused to quash a 2021 FIR lodged against a man who was stated to be member of a WhatsApp Group allegedly circulating 'obscene depiction' of Hindu Deities, observing that a "prima facie" case was made out wherein the material on its face could disturb communal harmony. The FIR was registered under IPC Sections 295A (Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs)On the application of Section 295A , Justice M Nagaprasanna referred to various Supreme Court judgments in his order and said:"The law as laid down by the Apex Court and that of this Court would clearly indicates that in cases where insult does not lead to disorder, if the act has the propensity to disrupt public order, it squarely falls within the scope of reasonable restriction of free speech. Therefore, in the garb of free speech anything and everything cannot be countenanced...The State has produced entire investigation material before this Court, a perusal of which contains depictions of Hindu deities in an extraordinarily obscene, demeaning and profane manner. The content is such that reproduction thereof, in a judicial order, would itself be inappropriate. Suffice it to observe that the material on its face has the tendency to outrage religious feelings and disturb communal harmony".The complainant had alleged that on 23-01-2021 he received a WhatsApp link from an unknown source. When he accessed the link, he was added to a WhatsApp group consisting of 6 administrators and nearly 250 participants.According to the complainant, obscene and deeply offensive images, depicting deities of the Hindu pantheon and certain political figures have been repeatedly circulated in the group. Alleging that the content was deliberately intended to outrage religious feelings and insult religious beliefs, a complaint was lodged, culminating in registration of an FIR in 2021. During the investigation, the petitioner was arrested, his device is seized and was produced before the Jurisdictional Magistrate; he was subsequently granted bail by the magistrate court and had moved the high court seeking quashing of FIR. The petitioner argued that the Investigating Officer had been negligent and had failed to take necessary steps for directing the intermediaries, specifically Airtel and Jio, to preserve the contents in the electronic form, as it has been more than 4 years and 2 months and the electronic evidence would be destroyed by default by the intermediaries. He alleged bias and partisan attitude against the IO, as the creator of the WhatsApp group is not taken into custody nor investigation is conducted against him. He also said that there was no role attributed to the petitioner either directly nor indirectly in the complaint, except the mention of his phone number. The high court said that there was no bar under Section 196CrPC restricting the police to register an FIR or conduct an investigation for offence under Section 295A IPC, and the bar only operates at the stage when the Court proposes to take cognizance of the offence.Referring to judgments of the Bombay High Court and Supreme Court on the issue, the high court said,"Sanction is a condition precedent only when a Court takes cognizance on the final report placed by the investigating agency before the Court. Absence of sanction cannot mean that registration of crime is illegal. The provision is unequivocal...At the investigating stage, it is not known whether the material collected would ultimately warrant filing of a charge sheet or closure of proceedings. To insist upon sanction even before investigation, would be to place a cart before the horse and defeat the very object of investigation". It said that in the present case the stage of cognizance had not yet arrived as the police were still investigating the matter. The court said that whether the petitioner had requisite mens rea, the extent of his role and the liability of other administrators are all matters that falls squarely within the domain of the investigation and any "premature interdiction" by the Court would amount to "stifling a lawful enquiry into allegations of serious import". "I am of the considered view that the offence under Section 295A of the IPC is met to every word of its ingredient albeit, prima facie. The matter is still at the stage of investigation. What could be the outcome of the investigation is yet to be known. Therefore, this Court cannot now interdict the investigation of an offence of such nature," the court added. The court also expressed concern over the conduct of the Investigating Officer, noting that the IO "appears to have blissfully ignored to proceed uniformly against all administrators of the group". It however said that if the investigation leads to any member being actively involved in permitting circulation of such pictures, "they must be brought to book". Finding the petition meritless,...

'Everything Can't Be Countenanced': Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Over 'Obscene Depiction' Of Hindu Deities In WhatsApp Group

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags