-1-

NC: 2024:KHC:37764
WP No. 25591 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 25591 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI KEERTHAN KUMAR

S/O DHARMAPALA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SODLU MANE,
BILINELI VILLAGE,
KADABA TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA – 574 221.

2. SRI SACHIN KUMAR N.M.,

S/O MEDAPPA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NADTHODU MANE,
Digitally signed by BILINELI VILLAGE,
NAGAVENI KADABA TALUK,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF DAKSHINA KANNADA – 574 221.
KARNATAKA …PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
KADABA POLICE STATION,
KADABA TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA – 574 221
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
 -2-
NC: 2024:KHC:37764
WP No. 25591 of 2023

BENGALURU – 560 001.

…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.SOWMYA R, HCGP FOR R-1;
R-2 SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND READ WITH SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.86 OF
2023 VIDE ANNX-C AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS THE FILE OF
2023 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA, REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 447, 295(A), 505, 506, 34 OF IPC
AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners/accused 1 and 2 are before this Court

calling in question a crime in crime No.86 of 2023 registered for

 -3-
NC: 2024:KHC:37764
WP No. 25591 of 2023

offences punishable under Sections 447, 295A, 505, 506 and

34 of the IPC and pending before the II Additional Civil Judge &

JMFC, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada District.

2. Heard Sri B.S. Sachin, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners and Smt. R. Sowmya, learned High Court

Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2

though served a year ago, has remained unrepresented even

today.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

Based upon an incident that took place on 24-09-2023, a

complaint comes to be registered by the 2nd respondent before

the Station House Officer, Kadaba Police Station, Puttur Circle.

The allegation of the 2nd respondent is that at about 10.50 p.m.

on 24-09-2023 some unknown persons barged into the Masjid

and shouted slogans saying ‘Jai Sriram” and alleged to have

threatened that they will not leave the community. On the

next day i.e., on 25-09-2023 comes the complaint which

becomes a crime. It is the complaint that on checking the

CCTV installed in the Masjid it was seen that one unknown car

and some unknown persons in the bike were moving here and
 -4-
NC: 2024:KHC:37764
WP No. 25591 of 2023

there around the Masjid. Accordingly, the complaint comes to

be registered. The complaint named unknown persons, but

while conducting investigation, these petitioners are drawn as

accused 1 and 2. The registration of crime is what has driven

the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would

vehemently contend that none of the ingredients that are

necessary for the aforesaid allegations are even present in the

case at hand. The offence, at the outset, is under Section 447

of the IPC which deals with criminal trespass. It is his

submission that a Masjid is a public place. Entry into it cannot

mean a criminal trespass. The other offences are under

Sections 295A, 505 and 506 of the IPC. Even those ingredients

are not present in the case at hand is his submission.

5. The learned High Court Government Pleader would

refute the submissions to contend that the petitioners cannot

enter into the Masjid and shout ‘Jai Sriram’ or threaten the

muthavalli. It is, therefore, the matter requires investigation in

the least and would seek dismissal of the petition.

 -5-
NC: 2024:KHC:37764
WP No. 25591 of 2023

6. The afore-narrated incident is said to have happened

on 24-09-2023. A complaint comes to be registered by one

C.M. Hyder Ali/2nd respondent. The complaint reads as follows:

“jUÉ,
ಾನ ೕ ಉಪ ೕ ಕರು,
PÀqÀ§ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ, PÀqÀ§
zÀ.PÀ.f¯Éè.

jAzÀ,

ºÉÊzÀgï C° ¹ JªÀiï (33)

ತಂ ೆ ಉಮ , ಾಸ:ಮರುವಂ ಲ ಮ ೆ,
§Alæ UÁæªÀÄ, PÀqÀ§ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ,
¥ÉÆãï:9008140759.

ಾನ ೇ

ಷಯ: #ಾ ೋ ಅಪ &ತರು ನಮ ಮ'ೕ(ಯ ಆವರಣ+ೆ, ಅಕ-ಮ ಾ.

ಪ- ೇ/' 0ೈ /-ೕ ಾಂ ಎಂದು ಕೂ. 4ೕವ 5ೆದ +ೆ678ದ ಬ:ೆ;.

*******

ಈ =ೕಲ,ಂಡ ಷಯ+ೆ, ಸಂಬಂ?'ದಂ@ೆ ತಮ A +ೇB+ೊಳDEವF ೇ ೆಂದ ೆ,

ಕಡಬ @ಾಲೂಕು ಐತೂHರು :ಾ-ಮದ ಮIಾJಳ ಎಂಬ Aರುವ ಬ(-#ಾ ಜು ಾ ಮ'ೕ(ಯು
ಕಡಬ-ಮIಾJಳ ರLೆHಯ ಮIಾJಳ ಜಂ M ನ AರುತH ೆ. ನಮ ಮ'ೕ(:ೆ ಆವರಣ :ೋNೆ
ಮತುH :ೇO ಇರುತH ೆ. Qೕ.ರು ಾಗ ಈ (ನ ( ಾಂಕ:24.09.2023 ರಂದು ಾ - ಸು ಾರು
10.50 ರ ಸಮಯ+ೆ,, ನಮ ಮ'ೕ(ಯ ಕಂSೌಂ7 ೊಳ:ೆ #ಾ ೋ ಅಪ &ತರು ಬಂದು
ಅಕ-ಮ ಾ. ಪ- ೇ/' 0ೈ /-ೕ ಾಂ ಎಂಬ UೂೕಷVೆಯನುW ಕೂ. 5ಾ ಗಳನುW ಬದುಕಲು
XಡYಾ ೆವF ಎಂದು 5ೊ5ೆZ ಇಟ\ರು. ಇವರ 5ೊ5ೆZಯನುW +ೇB ಆ ಸಮಯ ಕ]ೇ ಯ ಒಳ.zÀÝ
ಾನು ಮತುH ನಮ ಮ'ೕ(ಯ Iಾ_Jಕ ಗುರುಗ`ಾದ ೌaಾb ಸcಾd ಉLಾHದರು eೊರ
ಬಂದು ೋ7 ಾಗ ನಮ ನುW ೋ7 (fೕಚಕ- ಾಹನದ A ಇಬZರು ಅಪ &ತರು ನಮ
ಮ'ೕ(ಯ ಆವರಣ(ಂದ eೊರ eೋದರು. 'ನಂತರ ಾನು ನಮ ಮ'ೕ(ಯ '' i
ಯನುW ಪ ೕj' ಾಗ ನಮ ಮ'ೕ(ಯ ಎದುರುಗNೆ ಒಂದು ಡಸ\ +ಾ ೊಂದು
ಅನು ಾ ಾಸkದ ಾ. ಸಂಚ ಸು@ಾH, ನಮ ಮ'ೕ( ಮುಂmಾಗದ ರLೆHಯ A
ೕರು:ಾಡು HತುH. ಅ ೇ ಸಮಯ ನಮ ಮ'ೕ(ಯ ಅವರಣ+ೆ, #ಾ ೋ ಅಪರ&ತರು
(fೕಚಕ- ಾಹನದ A ಬಂದು eೋಗುವFದು ಕಂಡು ಬರು HತುH. ಆದುದ ಂದ ತಮ A
 -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:37764
WP No. 25591 of 2023

+ೇB+ೊಳDEವF ೇ ೆಂದ ೆ ನಮ ಊ ನ A Qಂದೂ-ಮುಸYಾ ನರು ಬಹಳ LೌeಾದJ@ೆpಂದ

ಾ'ಸು Hದುq ಇದನುW ಸQಸದ #ಾ ೋ r7:ೇ7ಗಳD ಅಕ-ಮ ಕೂಟ Lೇ r-ೕ_ನs
ಸಂಚು ರೂtಸುವ ೕ ಯ ಕೃತ ವನುW ಎಸ. ಾ7ನ A +ೋಮು ೆfೕಷವನುW
ಉಂಟು ಾಡಲು eಾಗೂ +ೋಮು ಗಲmೆಯನುW ಸೃv\ಸಲು ಈ ೕ ಯ ಕೃತ ವನುW
ನNೆ' ಾq.ರುತH ೆ. ಅದುದ ಂದ ಮ'ೕ(ಯ ಒಳ:ೆ ಪ- ೇ/' 0ೈ /-ೕ ಾಂ ಎಂದು ಕೂ.ದ
ಅಪ &ತರನುW ಪ@ೆH ಹ&w ಸೂಕH +ಾನೂನು ಕ-ಮ +ೈ:ೊಳE5ೇ+ೆಂದು +ೋ +ೆ.

ಸxಳ: ಮIಾJಳ
¢£ÁAPÀ:24.09.202

ಇ ೕ ತಮ yಾf'
¸À»/-

F ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß F ¢£À ¢£ÁAPÀ:25/09/2023 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ 1-00

UÀAmÉUÉ oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è ¹éÃPÀj¹PÉÆAqÀÄ zÀÆj£À DzsÁgÀzÀ°è PÀqÀ§ oÁuÁ C.PÀæ.:86/2023
PÀ®A:447, 295(A), 505. R/w 34 IPC AiÀÄAvÉ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR°¹PÉÆAqÉ£ÀÄ.”

The complaint is that on the night of 24-09-2023 some

unknown persons entered the mosque and shouted the slogan

‘Jai Sriram’ and said to have threatened that they will not leave

the community and thereafter are said to have ran away from

the spot. The complaint also narrates that Hindus and Muslims

in the jurisdiction of Kadaba Police Station are living in great

harmony and these persons who have shouted ‘Jai Sriram’ are

creating a rift between the communities. Therefore, the crime is

registered. It becomes germane to notice the offences so laid

against the petitioners. The offence punishable under Section

295A of the IPC reads as follows:

 -7-
NC: 2024:KHC:37764
WP No. 25591 of 2023

”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 term which may extend to three years,
or with fine, or with both.”

Section 295A deals with deliberate and malicious acts intended

to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion

or religious beliefs. 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

Hindu – Muslims are living in harmony in the area the incident

by no stretch of imagination can result in antimony. Here it

becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in

the case of MAHENDRA SINGH DHONI v. YERRAGUNTLA

SHYAMSUNDAR1, wherein it is held as follows:

“…. …. ….

6. On a perusal of the aforesaid passages, it is

clear as crystal that Section 295-A does not stipulate
everything to be penalised and any and every act would
tantamount to insult or attempt to insult the religion or
the religious beliefs of a class of citizens. It penalises only
those acts of insults to or those varieties of attempts to
insult the religion or religious belief of a class of citizens
1
(2017) 7 SCC 760
 -8-
NC: 2024:KHC:37764
WP No. 25591 of 2023

which are perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious

intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class
of citizens. Insults to religion offered unwittingly or
carelessly or without any deliberate or malicious intention
to outrage the religious feelings of that class do not come
within the section. The Constitution Bench has further
clarified that the said provision only punishes the
aggravated form of insult to religion when it is
perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of
outraging the religious feelings of that class. Emphasis
has been laid on the calculated tendency of the said
aggravated form of insult and also to disrupt the public
order to invite the penalty.
… … …
9. To satisfy ourselves, we have bestowed our
anxious consideration and scrutinised the allegations
made in the complaint petition and we have no hesitation
in holding that the allegations remotely do not satisfy the
essential ingredients of the offence and, therefore,
applying the principle stated in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , we quash
the complaint proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
… … …
12. In the case at hand, as the complaint is
quashed, needless to say, for the reasons for which the
complaint is quashed shall squarely apply to the co-
accused, who is the Editor of the magazine. Therefore, we
apply the same principle and quash the complaint even
against the co-accused. We may hasten to clarify that we
have passed the order of quashment keeping in view the
criminal miscellaneous petition filed in this case for
quashing and also not to allow more space for abuse of
the process of the Court.”

The Apex Court holds that any and every act will not become

an offence under Section 295A of the IPC. The acts that have

no effect on bringing out peace or destruction of public order

will not lead to an offence under Section 295A of the IPC.

 -9-
NC: 2024:KHC:37764
WP No. 25591 of 2023

7. The other offence is under Section 505 of the IPC.

Section 505 makes an offence for a person who makes a

statement which results in inducing or conducing public

mischief. There is no allegation that the incident alleged has

caused public mischief or any rift. The other offence is Section

506 of the IPC. The complaint itself narrates that the

complainant has not even seen who is the one who is alleged to

have committed offence of criminal intimidation attracting

ingredients of Section 506 of the IPC. Section 506 has its

ingredients in Section 503. The two read as follows:

“503. Criminal intimidation.—Whoever threatens

another with any injury to his person, reputation or
property, or to the person or reputation of any one in
whom that person is interested, with intent to cause
alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any
act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do
any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the
means of avoiding the execution of such threats, commits
criminal intimidation.
Explanation.—A threat to injure the reputation of
any deceased person in whom the person threatened is
interested, is within this section.
… … …

506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.—

Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or
with both;
if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt,
etc.—and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt,
or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to
 - 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37764
WP No. 25591 of 2023

cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment

for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a
woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years,
or with fine, or with both.”

The complaint nowhere even remotely touches upon the

ingredients of Section 503 or Section 447 of the IPC. Finding

no ingredients of any of the offences so alleged, permitting

further proceedings against these petitioners would become an

abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

(i) Writ Petition is allowed.

(ii) Entire proceedings in Crime No.86 of 2023 pending

before the II Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Puttur,

Dakshina Kannada stand quashed.

Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE

BKP