Existing User Account
Subscribe Premium

Merely Inciting Feelings Of One Community Without Reference To Any Other Community Cannot Attract Offence Of Section 153A IPC : Karnataka HC

Mustafa Plumber

9 Oct 2020 11:51 AM GMT

    • Merely Inciting Feelings Of One Community Without Reference To Any Other Community Cannot Attract Offence Of Section 153A IPC : Karnataka HC

    The High Court of Karnataka has quashed an FIR under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code observing that "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".A bench of Justice Micheal D Cunha referred to the Supreme Court decision in BILAL AHMED KALOO v. STATE OF A.P.,...

    The High Court of Karnataka has quashed an FIR under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code observing that "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".

    A bench of Justice Micheal D Cunha referred to the Supreme Court decision in BILAL AHMED KALOO v. STATE OF A.P., AIR 1997 SC 3483 in this regard.

    The bench quashed the FIR which was registered against seven Muslim men. The FIR was lodged on the basis of a complaint by one Roopesh Shetty that while he was standing by the road, a procession of about 200-250 persons passed by, and some of the members of the mob abused and threatened him not to cross the road. Shetty alleged that the mob was marching in such a manner that Hindus should get frightened on seeing Muslims and should flee. 

    The Court said that this was a perception formed by the complainant about the march and that there was no actual act committed by any of the members of the mob to attract the offence of Section 153A.

    Justice John Michael Cunha said "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."

    The Court quashed the FIR, which had mentioned other offences such as Sections 341, 504, 506 and 149 of the IPC, observing :

    "I find that the allegations made in the FIR are baseless and do not prima-facie make out the ingredients of any of the offences so as to warrant investigation by the respondent police. The manner in which the allegations are leveled against the petitioners indicate that the complaint is motivated, vexatious, malafide and the same appears to have been made out of spite and ill-will. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners being wholly illegal and abuse of process of the court is liable to be quashed."

    The prosecution opposed the petition saying that utterances directed at the complainant are sufficient to make out the ingredients of the offences incorporated in the FIR and moreover, the matter being under investigation, there is no reason to quash the proceedings.

    The court observed:

    "A reading of the complaint, in my view, does not prima-facie make out the ingredients of any of the above offences specified therein. There are no allegations in the entire complaint that the complainant was wrongfully confined or restrained by the petitioners or by any member of the mob. On the other hand, the case of the prosecution is that the complainant and others were waiting to cross the road when the procession was passing by. These allegations therefore even if accepted as true do not make out the ingredients of the offence under section 341 IPC."

    The court said even the ingredients of sections 504 and 506 IPC are not made out so as to proceed against the petitioners. "In order to constitute offences under these provisions, the accused ought to have intentionally insulted or given provocation to the complainant or any other persons intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break public peace. Such allegations are conspicuously absent in the FIR."

    It added "Even though the petitioners are named in the FIR, yet there are no specific allegations that any of the petitioners herein either threatened intimidated or hurled abuses against the complainant. The allegations are general in nature."

    The bench also noted that there is nothing on record to show that the police have taken any action either against the persons holding procession or any member of said group for behaving in an unruly manner or creating any untoward situation during the procession.

    Cause Title: MOHAMMED ATAULLA A And State of Karnataka.

    Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3768 OF 2020

    Date of Order: 05TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020

    Coram: JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

    Appearance

    Advocate LETHIF B for petitioners.

    Advocate R.D.RENUKARADHYA for respondent 1.

     

    Click Here To Download Order

    [Read Order]



    Tags
    Justice John Michael CunhaKarnataka HCSec 504 of IPCSec 506 of IPCSec 153A of IPC
    Next Story
    X