The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners for alleged offences under Section 153A IPC and the Indian Arms Act, holding that lack of sanction under Section 196 Cr.P.C. and absence of ingredients for enmity vitiates the proceedings.
Proceedings under Special C.C. No. 2251 of 2022 are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2576 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1 . RAJASINGH TAKUR @ T.RAJA SINGH S/O T.NAVAL SINGH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT:13-2-292/7 ARAMGHAT COLONY NEAR JALI HANUMAN, DHOOLPET ASIFNAGAR, HYDERABAD TELANGANA - 560 006.
3 . SIDDALINGASWAMY @ SIDDALINGYYA S/O KARANAYYA GADDUGE HIREMATHA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT: E/166, ANDOLA KARUNESHWAR MATHA JEWARGI, ANDOLA JEWARGI
2
GULBARGA - 585 303.
4 . VIJAYA KUMAR @ VIJAYA KUMAR PATIL S/O BHIMARAYA GOUDA A. PATIL AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT: NO.1-8-73 CHAKKAR KATTA ROAD SHAHAPUR PET YADAGIR - 585 201. KARNATAKA
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MANJUNATH S. HALAWAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA YADGIRI TOWN POLICE STATION REP BY HCGP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-1.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE POLICE IN CR.NO.250/2017 OF YADAGIRI TOWN POLICE STATION, YADAGIRI, WHICH IS NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-82) AT BENGALURU (SPECIAL COURT ELUSIVELY TO DEAL WITH CRIMINAL CASES RELATED TO ELECTED FORMER AND SITTING MPs/MLAs IN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA) FOR THE OFFNEC P/U/S 153A R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 25(1)(AA) OF INDIAN ARMS ACT AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
3
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 16.06.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioners/accused 1 to 4 are before this Court calling in question proceedings in Special C.C.No.2251 of 2022 arising out of crime No.250 of 2017 registered for offences punishable under Sections 153A r/w 34 of the IPC and Section 25(1AA) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 (‘the Act’ for short).
On 12-12-2017 an incident takes place at Vanikere Lay-out,
Yadagiri District where the petitioners and others joined as a conglomeration to attend Hindu Virat Samvesh (‘Samvesh’ for short). It is alleged that the participants in the Samvesh had specifically been directed non-usage of arms and making controversial statements. A report then comes to be made to the jurisdictional Police that despite these directions, the petitioners along with others formed an assembly which was unlawful with common intention to instigate people by making provocative speeches and at the end exhibited a sword on the stage. This report
4
to the jurisdictional Police became a crime in Crime No.250 of 2017 for offences punishable under Sections 153A, 149, 147, 143, 145 of the IPC and Section 25 (1AA) of the Act registered against the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 4. On 18-08-2018, the Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet in C.C.No.133 of 2019 before the learned Magistrate at Yadagiri. The charge sheet was filed for offences punishable under Section 153A r/w 34 of the IPC and Section 25(1AA) of the Act. The learned Magistrate on 28-08-2019 takes cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. Since one of the members was a political representative, the petitioners were directed to appear before the competent Court constituted to try offences against MPs/MLAs.
5
hearing before charge and at that point in time, the petitioners knocked at the doors of this Court in the subject petition.
6
witnesses are Police witnesses or seizure witnesses of the jurisdictional Police. He would submit that both on the jurisdiction of the matter and on merits further proceedings cannot be permitted to be continued. He would seek quashment of the same.
7
8
whether trial should be permitted to be continued for offences punishable under Section 153A of the IPC and other allied offences, in the absence of sanction as required in law to try the offence under Section 153A of the IPC.
“ 153-A. Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony .—(1) Whoever—
9
or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community and such activity, for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community,
shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Offence committed in place of worship, etc .—(2) Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (1) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.”
To allege offences under Section 153A and try them, it is imperative that the State should accord sanction for prosecution of offences under Section 153A. Section 196 of the Cr.P.C. reads as follows:
” 196. Prosecution for offences against the State and for criminal conspiracy to commit such offence .—(1) No Court shall take cognizance of—
10
except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government.
(2) No court shall take cognizance of the offence of any criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, unless the State Government or the District Magistrate has consented in writing to the initiation of the proceedings:
Provided that where the criminal conspiracy is one to which the provisions of Section 195 apply, no such consent shall be necessary.
(3) The Central Government or the State Government may, before according sanction under sub-section (1) or subsection (1-A) and the District Magistrate may, before according sanction under sub-section (1-A) and the State Government or the District Magistrate may, before giving consent under subsection (2), order a preliminary investigation by a police officer not being below the rank of Inspector, in which case such police officer shall have the powers referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 155.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Section 196 of the Cr.P.C. deals with prosecution for offences
against the State and for criminal conspiracy to commit such
11
offence. Section 196 of the Cr.P.C. begins with a non-obstante clause and reads “No court shall take cognizance” for any offence under Section 153A, 153B, 295A or Section 505 of the IPC or even abatement as obtaining under Section 108A of the IPC. Sub-section (2) of Section 196 of the Cr.P.C. further mandates that no Court shall take cognizance of the offence of any criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC other than the criminal conspiracy to commit a cognizable offence as described in the provision supra provided where the criminal conspiracy is one of which the provisions of Section 195 would apply. The other offence alleged is under the Arms Act as obtaining under Section 25(1AA). It reads as follows:
“ 25. Punishment for certain offences .—
(1-AA) Whoever manufactures, sells, transfers, converts, repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer or has in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of Section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.”
Whoever would manufacture, sell, transfer, convert, repair, test or
prove or expose or offer for sale or transfer or has in his possession for sale or transfer any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in
12
contravention of Section 7 shall become punishable for a term of 7 years or more. When these offences are alleged against the petitioners, the admitted fact is that there is no sanction accorded under Section 196 of the Cr.P.C. as the offences alleged are against the State. Therefore, without sanction being accorded for prosecution, the Court could not have taken cognizance as Section 196 of the Cr.P.C., which mandates that no Court shall take cognizance of the offence under Section 153A of the IPC. Section 153A of the IPC is what is alleged in the case at hand apart from the offence under the Act. Therefore, for want of sanction and the sanction cutting at the root of taking of cognizance, the aftermath of the order of taking of cognizance even at the first instance would tumble down.
13
permitted to be continued against the petitioners. This would be with regard to the sanction.
KOLLU ANKABABU v. TIRUPATHI RAMESH1 wherein the High Court of Andhra Pradesh after noticing Section 153A of the IPC has held as follows:
“ 17. The ingredients necessary for making out an offence under Section 153-A(a) is that the accused person by words either spoken or written etc., promotes or attempts to promote, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever.
1 2022 SCC OnLine AP 2812
14
18. The ingredients necessary for making out an offence under Section 153-A(b) is the commission of any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity.
19. The ingredients necessary for an offence under Section 153-A(c) is to organise any exercise, movement, drill etc., so that participates in such activities can be trained to use violence or criminal force against any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community and such activity for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or communities.
20. The language in all the three sub-clauses of Section 153-A require the following conditions to be met before any offence can be said to have been committed within this provision:—
15
groups defined on the basis of their religion, race, language, place of birth, caste or community.
(Emphasis supplied)
The High Court considering the fact that Section 153A of the IPC would require several conditions to be met before trial on the said offence has stated that the action should cause enmity between the two groups. Ill-will against one particular group will not attract Section 153A of the IPC. These actions should be alleged to be committed with the intention of causing the said enmity. The provision would become applicable only where enmity is caused on grounds of religion, race, place of birth or any other grounds whatsoever. The terms ‘any other grounds whatsoever’ cannot be read in isolation; they will have to be read along with the words that are in the other clauses of the provision. Differences or ill-will caused between two groups which are not defined on the basis of the requirement under Section 153A of the IPC would not attract the provision. If what is considered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is paraphrased into the facts obtaining in the case at hand,
16
it would become unmistakably clear that the offences alleged would not touch upon the ingredients of Section 153A of the IPC or in any way are not enough to attract Section 153A of the IPC. Therefore, on the aforesaid grounds permitting further proceedings would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:
O R D E R
II. Proceedings in Special C.C.No.2251 of 2022 pending before the LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-82), Bengaluru stand quashed.
Sd/JUDGE
bkp CT:MJ
3 issues framed by the court
Whether proceedings for offences under Section 153A IPC can be continued in the absence of sanction under Section 196 Cr.P.C.
Whether facts alleged satisfy the ingredients for an offence under Section 153A IPC regarding enmity between groups.
Whether lack of sanction at the stage of cognizance vitiates the entire criminal proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kollu Ankababu v. Tirupati RameshExplained¶79
KOLLU ANKABABU v. TIRUPATHI RAMESH
4 provisions across 3 enactments
RAJASINGH TAKUR
PRAMOD MUTALIK
SIDDALINGASWAMY
VIJAYA KUMAR PATIL
STATE OF KARNATAKA
M. NAGAPRASANNA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
