Dismissed¶16

Gulamuddin and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Jul 2024A482/19697/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 CrPC quashing refused; national flag (Tiranga) disrespect; Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act 1971 Section 2; Flag Code of India 2002; Quranic verses (ayat and kalma) inscribed on flag during religious procession; mala fide FIR colourable exercise; questions of fact for trial court; statements under Section 161 CrPC; Allahabad High Court 2024; Case Crime No. 0344 of 2023 P.S. Jalaun.

What did the court decide?

The submissions raised call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court; adjudication of questions of fact and appreciation of evidence, or examining reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ¶11

Gulamuddin and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceeding arising out of the charge-sheet dated 04.10.2023 and cognizance order dated 14.05.2024 in Criminal Case No. 749 of 2024 should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +2 more

¶6

Court's answer

¶11

Ratio / Principle

In view of the material on record it cannot be held that the impugned criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused.

¶11

Key takeaways

No illegality, perversity or other substantial error could be pointed out in the impugned summoning order so as to warrant interference by the Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.ratio¶12
Prima facie, the applicants took part in the religious procession carrying the Tiranga on which Quranic verses (ayat and kalma) were inscribed, adding insults to the national flag.ratio¶13
The Court finds force in the argument of learned A.G.A. and prima facie finds that the act of the applicants is punishable under the Flag Code of India, 2002 and there is violation of Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults of National Honour Act, 1971 by the applicants.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vinod Diwakar, J.) dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 749 of 2024 (State v. Mohd. Irshad Ansari and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0344 of 2023, P.S. Jalaun, District Jalaun, under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults of National Honour Act, 1971, in which the applicants were alleged to have carried the Tiranga in a religious procession with Arabic/Quranic verses (ayat and kalma) inscribed on it. Held: adjudication of questions of fact and appreciation of evidence falls outside the Section 482 jurisdiction and is for the trial court; no mala fide, ulterior motive, illegality or perversity in the summoning order was made out; the Court prima facie found the act punishable under the Flag Code of India, 2002 and violative of Section 2 of the 1971 Act. All observations were confined to deciding the case and have no bearing on the merits.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:120598

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19697 of 2024 Applicant :- Gulamuddin And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amarjeet Chakrawarti,Ganesh Shanker Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused material on record.

¶6

The instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding arising out of charge-sheet dated 04.10.2023 and cognizance order dated 14.05.2024, passed in Criminal Case No. 749 of 2024, titled as State v. Mohd. Irshad Ansari and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 0344 of 2023, under Section 2 of Prevention of Insults of National Honour Act, 1971, registered at P.S. Jalaun, District Jalaun.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that; (i) the entire criminal proceedings lodged by the informant is only colourable exercise against the applicants; (ii) investigation do not suggest whether the flag mentioned in the FIR is a Tiranga or any other flag, having three colours; (iii) police have not brought any evidence on record to suggest that there was any mischief caused to the national flag as specified in Section 2 and 3 of Prevention of Insults of National Honour Act, 1971; (iv) the statement of Eshanullah and Ramdas has been extracted by police under the coercion and duress; (v) the statement of constable Khursheed, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. cannot be relied upon; (vi) FIR is registered by S.I. Anil Kumar Rana on the basis of the engineered facts, therefore, cannot be relied upon; (vii) on reading of the FIR it cannot be safely revealed the alleged Tiranga was

¶8

actually a national flag or not; (viii) the national flag was subsequently planted by the police after registration of the FIR; (ix) the applicants were falsely implicated in the instant case during investigation because of reasons known to the police.

¶9

Per-contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and argued that FIR was registered against unknown persons. The applicants name figured in the statement of constable Khursheed Alam, Eshanullah and Ramdas-the police witnesses. He next submits that after taking the Tiranga in possession, it is revealed that certain verses (ayat and kalma ) were written in Arbic on the Tiranga. After taking the Tiranga in possession the Sahar Qazi Maulana Shabir Ali translated the Arbic which is found scribes on the Tiranga, are outlined hereunder:

¶10

" शहरककजजममलकनकसकबबरअलजपपतबमटटशकहबन०मम०बचमनदपबबकसबकव थकनकजकलमनजनपदजकलमनकमतलबकरपढवकयकगयकतमउनहमनबबतकयकबक अरबजममलकइलकहजइबललकहमपहममदउलपरसपलपलकहजजसककअथरहहअलककब जसवकयकमईइबकदतकबलकयकनहहहह।लकफलकइलकलजयतकसमदजपलफककर जमबहनदजममजवकनकमईनहहमगरअलजतलवकरकमईनहहमगरजपललफककरदम धकरजअअबकतहह।"

¶11

In the instant matter, the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record it can also not be held that the impugned criminal proceeding are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to

¶12

private and personal grudge. Similarly no such illegality, perversity or any other substantial error could be pointed out in the impugned summoning order, so as to warrant any interference by this court in exercise of powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

¶13

On perusal of record and on examination of statement of witness, Tajuddin, Ramdas, constable Khursheed Alam and Eshanullah recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C, it's revealed that the applicants took part in the religious procession and were carrying Tiranga in their hands, on which Quranic verses (ayat and kalma ) were inscribed adding insults to the national flag. This Court finds force in the argument of learned A.G.A. and prima-facie finds that the act of applicants is punishable under Flag Code of India, 2002 and there is violation of Section 2 of Prevention of Insults of National Honour Act, 1971 by the applicants.

¶14

The Tiranga, India's National Flag, symbolizes the unity and diversity of the nation, transcending religious ethic and cultural differences. It is a unifying emblem representing the collective identity and sovereignty of India. Act of disrespect towards the Tiranga can have far-reaching social cultural implications, particularly in a diverse society like India. Such incidents can be exploited by the elements seeking to create communal discord or fuel misunderstandings between different communities. It is crucial to recognize that the actions of a few individuals should not be used to stigmatize an entire community.

¶15