Sri Basanagouda R Patil Yatnal Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri Basanagouda R Patil Yatnal Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the FIR in Crime No.131/2023 registered by Bankapura P.S., pending before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Siggaon, Haveri, qua the petitioner.

Issue for consideration

Whether the averments in the complaint underlying Crime No.131/2023 meet the ingredients of Section 505(2) of the IPC. +1 more

Court's answer

Considering the complaint on the touchstone of the principles elucidated by the Apex Court in the judgments relied upon (Bilal Ahmed Kaloo, Manzar Sayeed Khan, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal), the inevitable inference is obliteration of the crime, i.e., the complaint does not meet the ingredients of Section 505(2) IPC.

Ratio / Principle

The criminal petition is allowed and the impugned crime in Crime No.131/2023, pending before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Siggaon, Haveri, stands quashed qua the petitioner.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS) by Basanagouda R. Patil (Yatnal), MLA, Vijayapura Constituency, seeking quashing of the FIR in Crime No.131/2023 registered by Bankapura Police Station, Haveri District, for the offence punishable under Section 505(2) IPC. The FIR arose from a speech allegedly delivered by the petitioner on 07.10.2023 at about 7.30 p.m. in Bankapur town concerning Sanatana Dharma, in which, per the complainant, he stated that those who hoist the flag of Pakistan in Belgaum are the grandchildren of Pakistanis; the State contended the crime was registered suo motu and was under investigation. The Court noticed the complaint in extenso and tested it against the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 7 SCC 431 (common ingredient of Sections 153A and 505(2) is promotion of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups; mens rea is a necessary postulate of Section 505(2); 'makes, publishes or circulates' are supplementary, not disjunctive; at least two groups or communities must be involved), Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 5 SCC 1, and the quashing categories in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. 1 SCC 335. Holding that the complaint did not meet the ingredients of Section 505(2) IPC and that the inevitable inference was obliteration of the crime, the Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the FIR in Crime No.131/2023 qua the petitioner.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:4448 CRL.P No. 10145 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10145 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

SRI BASANAGOUDA R.PATIL (YATNAL) S/O RAMANAGOUDA B.PATIL AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCC: MLA, VIJAYAPURA CONSTITUENCY R/AT OLD IB, STATION ROAD VIJAYAPURA – 586 101, KARNATAKA.

ALSO AT

R/AT SINDAGI ROAD MAHAL AINAPUR AINAPUR, BIJAPUR KARNATAKA - 586 104.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI VENKATESH P. DALWAI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed byVISHAL NINGAPPADigitally signed byVISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHALPATTIHAL Location: HighLocation: High Court of Karnataka,Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench,DharwadDharwad Bench,Dharwad

STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY BANKAPURA POLICE STATION HAVERI DISTRICT

REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001.

B.G.DODDAMANI POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR BANKAPUR POLICE SHIGGAON TALUK

HAVERI DISTRICT - 581 205

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:4448 CRL.P No. 10145 of 2024

REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, BENGALURU – 560 001.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI JAGADEESHA B. N., A.S.P.P.)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH FIR IN CR.NO.131/2023 REGISTERED BY BANKAPURA P.S., PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, SHIGGAON HAVERI FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 505(2) OF IPC PRODUCED AT DOCUMENT NO.1.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.131/2023, for the offence punishable under Section 505(2) of the IPC.

Heard Sri Venkatesh P. Dalwai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Jagadeesha B.N., learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents – State.

Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

It is the case of the respondents - complainant that on 07.10.2023, at about 7.30 p.m., in Bankapur town, the

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4448 CRL.P No. 10145 of 2024

petitioner addressed a speech concerning Sanatana Dharma, which according to the complainant, the petitioner had made statement that those who hoist the flag of Pakistan, in Belgaum are the grandchildren of Pakistanis. Based on the said incident, comes the impugned complaint.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri Venkatesh P. Dalwai, would contend that even if averments in the complaint are construed to be true, would not become offence under Section 505(2) of the IPC, as its ingredients do not meet. He therefore, seeks quashment of the crime.

The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would refute the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that the police have registered a suo motu crime against the petitioner. The crime is now under investigation. The speech made by the petitioner undoubtedly forms the ingredients of Section 505(2) of the IPC. He would seek dismissal of the petition.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:4448 CRL.P No. 10145 of 2024

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record.

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute and requires no reiteration. The issue lies in a narrow compass. Since the entire issue has sprung from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. It reads as follows:

“ UÉ,

�ಾನ� � ಎ� ಐ �ಾನೂನು ಮತು� ಸುವ�ವ�ೆ� ಬಂ�ಾಪ�ರ ��ೕಸ �ಾ�ೆ .

�ಾನ � �ೆ ,

ಾನು ! " #ೊಡ%ಮ& , � ಎ� ಐ ತ&'ಾ ()ಾಗ , ವಯಸು, 52 ವಷ. , ಉ#ೊ�ೕಗ � ಎ� ಐ ಬಂ�ಾಪ�ರ ��ೕಸ �ಾ�ೆ , 0ೕ1ೈ3 ನಂಬರ : 9480796063 &ೕಡುವ ಗಣ5ೕಕೃತ ಸ�ಾ.8 ತ�ೕ. ದೂರು . : ಾಂಕ : 13-10-2023 ೇ ಇ ¹ é ತರು<ಾಯ .

ಾನು ಕ=ೆದ ಒಂದು ವಷ.:ಂದ ಬಂ�ಾಪ�ರ ��ೕಸ �ಾ�ೆಯ�? ತ&'ಾ ()ಾಗದ � ಎ� ಐ ಅಂAಾ ಕತ.ವ� &ವ.BಸುCಾ� ಬಂ:ದುD ಇರುತ�#ೆ .

: ಾಂಕ : 07-10-2023 ರಂದು Bಂದೂ ಮEಾಗಣಪF �ೇ<ಾ ಸGF 8 ೆಹರು Iಾಡ.J ಕGೕK ಬಂ�ಾಪ�ರ ಆ :ನ �ಾಯಂ�ಾಲ NOೕ ಬಸನIೌಡ �ಾಮನIೌಡ QಾKೕಲ �ಾ : ಯCಾRಳ Tಾಸಕರು (ಜಯಪ�ರ (Vಾನಸ)ಾ WೇತO ಇವರು ಗಣಪF (Tೇಷ ಪXYೆIೆ ಆಗGಸುF�ದುD , Bಂದೂ ಮEಾ ಗಣಪF �ೇ<ಾ ಸGF ವFZಂದ Bಂದೂ ಜನ YಾಗೃF ಸ�ಾ<ೇಶದ�? )ಾಷಣ �ಾಡುವವರು ಇ#ಾD�ೆ ಅಂCಾ 1ಾF\ ]ೕ�ೆIೆ oÁuÉ¬ÄAzÀ £À£ÀUÉ ª À Äv À ÄÛ J.J¸ï.L © J£ï CU À ¹ª À Ä¤, ª À Äv À ÄÛ ¹§âA¢Ai À Äª À gÁz À º É Zï ¹ 996, 1433, ¦¹ 1133, 1136, 882, 931 ಇವ8Iೆ ಕತ.ವ��ೆ^ &_ೕ"ದುD ಇದುD ಅದರಂCೆ �ಾಯಂ�ಾಲ ಬಸನIೌಡ �ಾಮನIೌಡ QಾKೕಲ �ಾ** : **ಯCಾRಳ ಇವರು ಮತು� ಇತರರು 1ೈa** eÁvÁ **ದ ಮೂಲಕ ಬಂದು ಗಣಪFIೆ ಪX" ನಂತರ �ೇ8#ೆ . d£ÀgÀ£ÀÄß GzÉÝÃ²¹ D ¢£À ¢£ÁAP À : 07-10-2023 g À Az À Ä 18-10 U À Am É U É »Az À Æ ª À ÄºÁ U À t¥ À w ¸ É ÃªÁ ¸ À «Äw ವFZಂದ Bಂದೂ ಜನ YಾಗೃF ಸ�ಾ<ೇಶವ� ಜರುbದುD ಸದರ Bಂದೂ ಜನYಾಗೃF ಸ�ಾ<ೇಶದ Bಂದು ಮEಾ ಸ)ಾ ಗಣಪF ೇ<ಾ ಸGF , ಅಂದ�ೆ ಶ5� , ಗಣಪF ಎಂದ�ೆ

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:4448 CRL.P No. 10145 of 2024

ಮು5� , ಬಂ�ಾಪ�ರದ ಗಣಪF ಶ5� 0ದಲು . IೊF�ರ�cಾ? , ಗಣಪFಯನುR ಸdಲe ತAೆಯುವ ಪOಯತR �ಾf#ಾಗ ನಮ\ ಗಣಪನ ಶ5� ಇf ಕನRಡ ಾfIೆ FgZತು . �ಾಂIೆO� ಸ�ಾ.ರ ಬCಾ. ಇದD EಾIೆ 1ೆಳIಾ(ಯ�? Qಾ5�ಾ�ನ ಧiಜ Eಾ:#ೆ ಅವ�ೆಲ? ಸ�ಾ.ರದ 0ಮ\ಕ^ಳj ಇದು ಗಣಪF ಭಕ�ರ ಶ5� , ಾ<ೆcಾ? TೆOೕಷl<ಾದ ಸ ಾತನ ಧಮ.�ೆ^ �ೇ8ದವರು , (ಶdದ ಕcಾ�ಣ�ಾ^b ಇರುವರು , ಇದನುR �ೆಲವ gÀÄ ಅವEೇಳನ �ಾಡುF�#ಾD�ೆ , ನನIೆ ಅ ಾ�ಯ<ಾದ�ೆ ಸುಮ\ ೆ ಕೂಡುವ�:cಾ?. )ಾರತ #ೇಶ ಈ ಸಂಸoFಯ ಆVಾರದ ]ೕcೆ ಎಲ? gÀ ನುR ಒಗೂpf�ೊಂಡು ಬಂ:#ೆ** . **ಆದ�ೆ �ೆಲವ� #ೇಶಗಳ�? ಈ ಸಂಸoF ಇcಾ? ನಮ\ ಸಂಸoFಯ (ರುದq �ಾತ ಾಡುವರ (ರುದq ಧi& ಎತ�ಲು ಾ<ೆcಾ? ಒಂ#ಾಗ1ೇಕು** . **�ೆಲವ8Iೆ )ಾರತ ಶ5�Tಾ�rಾಗುವ�ದು** , **ಸುಭದO<ಾbರಲು ಇsಾt ಇcಾ?** , **ನಮ\ ಸರ�ಾರದ�? rಾವ�#ೇ ಗಲ1ೆrಾ#ಾಗ ಾವ� ದಂIೆ�ೋಧ8Iೆ ತಕ^ NWೆ &ೕf#ೆDವ�** , **�ಾಂIೆOೕ� ಸರ�ಾರ ಬಂದ ]ೕcೆ 1ೆಳIಾ(ಯ�? Qಾ5�ಾ�ನದ ಧiYಾ Eಾ�ಾf#ೆ** . **ಧiಜ Eಾ�ಾfದವರು Qಾ5�ಾ�ನದ 0ಮ\ಕ^ಳj . Nವ0ಗp , �ೋcಾರದ�? ಗಲ)ೆಗ=ಾb#ೆ . �ೕ�ಸರ ]ೕcೆ ಕಲು? ತು�ಾfದುD ಸಣuಘಟ ೆ ಎಂದು EೇಳjF�#ಾD�ೆ , ನಮ\ ಹುಡುಗುರು ಇ ೊRಬxರ ªÉÃ ಶ Eಾ5�ೊಂಡು ಗಲ)ೆ �ಾಡುವಂತ Eೇfಗಳಲ? .

�ೆಲವ8Iೆ ಗಣಪನ ]ರವyIೆ ಅವರ ಓyಯ�? Eೋದ�ೆ ಉ8ಯುತ�#ೆ . ಈ ಮಕ^ಳj ನಮ\ #ೇಶದ ಅನR Fಂದು Qಾ5�ಾ�J "ಂ#ಾ1ಾ{ ಅನುRF�#ಾD�ೆ . 2024 ರ ನಂತರ Qಾ5�ಾ�ನ ದ�? ಗಣಪFಯನುR ಪOFsಾlಪ ೆ �ಾಡುCೆ�ೕ<ೆ . Qಾ5�ಾ�ನದ ಯುವಕರು 0ೕ: ಪOVಾ& 1ೇಕು ಅಂCಾ�ೆ , ನಮ\ �ೆಲವರು Qಾ5�ಾ�ನ 5 Yೈ ಅಂCಾರು Eೈ1ೆOೕ| ತgಯ ಾಯಕರು ಮು?ಂ�ೆcಾ? ನಮIೆ ಓಟು Eಾ5#ಾD�ೆ ಎಂದು Eೇg�ೊಳj}Cಾ�ೆ** . **BಂದುಗgIೆ ಒಂ#ಾb ಒಂದುಕAೆ ಒ~ಾtb ಓಟು Eಾಕಲು ಶ5�ವಂತ�ಾಗ1ೇಕು** . **ಾವ� Bಂದುಗಳj #ಾG.ಕ ಕುಟುಂಬ ಎನುRವ�ದನುR Qಾ�ಸುCೆ�ೕ<ೆ ನಮ\ ಸಂ�ಾ^ರ** , **ಅದು ನಮ\ ಬಲBೕನCೆಯcಾ?** , **ಸ ಾಥನ ಧಮ.ವನುR Eಾಳj �ಾಡಲು ಇFEಾಸದ�? ಎಂCೆಂತವರ ಪOಯತR ಪಟtರು ನಮ\ ಸ ಾತನ ಧಮ.ವನುR 5ಂ€ತು� ಅgIಾfಸಲು ಆbcಾ?** , **ಈ ಬಂಡು�ೋರರು ನಮ\ ೆRೕನು �ಾಡಲು ಆಗುತ�#ೆ** ? **ನಲವತು� ವಷ.:ಂದ ಈ ಬಂ�ಾಪ�ರದ ಸಂಘಟ ೆ ಭ�ಷt<ಾಗತ�** ¯É **ಬರುF�#ೆ ಾನು !Yಾಪ�ರದ�? ನನIೆ �ಾಬರ ಓಟು 1ೇ�ಾbಲ? ಅಂತ Eೇg#ೆDೕ<ೆ ನಮ\ವದು ಸಂಘಟ ೆrಾb#ಾD�ೆ ನಮ\ವ�ೇ** ªÉÇÃ **ಟು Eಾ5ದ�ೆ �ಾಕು** 20 **ವಷ.ದ Bಂ#ೆ ಕನRಡ ಕ�ದ ]ೕಡಂIೆ ಕನRಡ ಕ�ತ ಹುಡುಗ�ೇ ]ೕಡಮ&Iೆ ಕಲು? ಒIೆಯಲು Eೋb#ಾD�ೆ . ಅ PÀâ • ಎಂದೂ ಮುಂ#ೆ ಬಂದು ಯುದq �ಾfಲ? . ಈಗ ಈ ಮಕ^ಳj ನಮIೆ dA 1ೆ Cೋ8ಸುCಾ�ೆ ನಮ\ ಮ ೆಯ�?ಯ ಜಂ1ೆ ಉ=ಾ}ಗf% Eೆ‚ಾƒa ಇಲ? . ಮುಸcಾ\ನರು ಎಂದೂ ನಮ\ ಅಣu ತಮ\ಂ:ರು ಆಗುವ�:ಲ? &ೕವ� ಸುಮ\ ೆ Fgದು�ೊಂf:Dೕ8 1ಾZ 1ಾZ ಅಂತ EೇಳjF�:Dೕ8 ಆದ�ೆ ಅವರು ತಮ\ ಬು:DಯನುR Cೋ8ಸ#ೇ !ಡುವ�:ಲ? . ಮುಸcಾ\ನರು ಅವರು ನಮIೆ ಎಂದೂ Bಂದುಗಳj ಅನುRವ�:ಲ? ನಮ\ <ೈ8ಗಳj ಅಂತ EೇಳjCಾ�ೆ ಆ <ೇ=ೆಯ�? &ೕವ� EೇIೆ ಅಣu - ತಮ\ಂ:�ಾಗುF�ೕ8 . &ೕವ� rಾ<ಾಗcಾದರೂ ಮ`ೕ: ]ೕcೆ #ಾg �ಾf:Dೕ�ಾ ಆದ�ೆ Nವ0ಗpದ�? Bಂದುಗಳ ]ೕcೆ #ಾg �ಾf#ಾD�ೆ . rಾವ ಸು=ೇಮಗ ಅವ ಔರಂಗYೇಬ , ಅ PÀâ • , ಮEಾ�ಾ�ಾ ಪOCಾಪ ಅಂದ�ೆ ಚf%ಯ�? ಹು‚ೆƒ ಹುಯುD�ೊಳj}F�ದD . ನಮ\ Bಂದು ಶ5�ಯನುR Cೋ8ಸ1ೇಕು ಅಂತ ಮುಂCಾb

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:4448 CRL.P No. 10145 of 2024

�ಾತ ಾfದರು . ಸದ8ಯವರು )ಾಷಣವನುR �ಾಯಂ�ಾಲ 06-10 ಘಂ~ೆIೆ QಾOರಂಭ<ಾb 07-30 ಘಂ~ೆIೆ )ಾಷಣ ಮು�ಾ�ಯ ಆbದುD ಇರುತ�#ೆ .

ಬಸನIೌಡ �ಾಮನIೌಡ QಾKೕಲ �ಾ B ಯCಾRಳ ಇವರು ((ಧ ಗುಂಪ� , YಾF - YಾFಗಳ ಮದ� , #ೆdೕಷವನುRಂಟು �ಾಡುವ�ದು ಮತು� ಸEೌಧ.CೆIೆ 1ಾದಕ<ಾಗುವ ಕೃತ�ಗಳನುR �ಾಡಲು )ಾಷಣ:ಂದ ((ಧ ಮFೕಯ ಮೂಲವಂNಯ ಮತು� �ೋಮುಗಳ ನಡು<ೆ ಅ�ೌEಾಧ.ವನುR ಅಥ<ಾ <ೈರ , #ೆdೕಷ , <ೈಮನ ¹ì J )ಾವ ೆಗಳನುR Eೆ€ƒಸಲು �ಾವ.ಜ&ಕ �ೆಡು5Iೆ �ಾರಣ<ಾಗುವ ಮFೕಯ #ೆdೕಷ)ಾಷಣ �ಾfದುD ಇರುತ�#ೆ .

ಆ �ಾಲ�ೆ^ ಾನು �ಾಯ.ಕOಮದ QಾOರಂಭ:ಂದ ಮು�ಾ�ಯ<ಾಗುವವ�ೆಗೂ ಬಂ#ೋಬ�� ಕತ. ªÀå &ವ.ಹ�ೆ#ೊಂ:Iೆ ಾನು �ೇg�ೊಂfದುD** , **ಮತು� ೋfದುD �ಾ�ೆಯ ಬxಂ:ಗಳj ಅಲ?#ೇ � . ** 931 **ೇದವರು )ಾಷಣವನುR �ಾ�ೆಯ �ಾ��ಾ�ಾದ�? €FOಕ8ದುD , ಈ :ನ �ಾ�ೆಯ ಬxಂ: (f_ೕವನುR f ಮೂಲಕ ತುಂ!�ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು EಾಜರಪfದುD , ಈಗ ೋf 'ಾFO�ಾf�ೊಂಡು ತಡ<ಾb ದೂರು &ೕfದುD ಆ zÉ. ಬಸನIೌಡ �ಾಮನIೌಡ QಾKೕಲ ¸Á: ಯCಾRಳ ಇವರ ]ೕcೆ ಕಲಂ 505(2) ಐ�` ೇದDರ ಅfಯ�? ಸ�ಾ.8 ತ�. ದೂರು ಇರುತ�#ೆ .

ತಮ\ (Tಾd` .”

A perusal of the complaint afore-quoted, the point that arises for consideration is, whether the complaint would meet the ingredients of Section 505(2) of the IPC.

Section 505(2) of the IPC reads as follows:

" 505. Statements conducing to public mischief .

(1) xxx

(2) Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes .-- Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report NC: 2024:KHC:51256 containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or illwill between different religious, racial, language or

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:4448 CRL.P No. 10145 of 2024

regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."

The purport and the necessary ingredients of Section 505(2) of IPC need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the case of BILAL AHMED

KALOO VS. STATE OF ANDRA PRADESH reported in (1997)

7 SCC 431, interpreting Section 505(2) of the IPC, has held as follows:

“….

Section 153A was amended by the Criminal and Election Laws (Amendment) Act 1969 - Act No.XXXV of 1996. It consists of three clauses of which clauses (a) and (b) alone are material now. By the same amending Act sub-section (2) was added to Section 505 of the Indian Penal Code. Clauses (a) & (b) of Section 153A and Section 505(2) are extracted below:

"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-

(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or

(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial,

8 -

NC: 2025:KHC:4448 CRL.P No. 10145 of 2024

language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity, or

(c) * * *

Shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."

505(2) Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill- will between classes.- Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."

The common ingredient in both the offences is promoting feeling of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious or racial or linguistic or regional groups or castes or communities. Section 153A covers a case where a person by "words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations" promotes or attempts to promote such feeling. Under Section 505(2), promotion of such feeling should have been done by making and publishing or circulating any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news.

This Court has held in Balwant Singh and another vs. State of Punjab (1995) 3 SCC 214) that mens rea is a necessary ingredient for the offence under Section 153A. Mens rea is an equally necessary postulate for the offence under Section 505(2) also as could be discerned from the words "with intent to create or promote or which is likely to create or promote" as used in that sub-section.

9 -

NC: 2025:KHC:4448 CRL.P No. 10145 of 2024

12. The main distinction between the two offences is that publication of the word or representation is not necessary under the former, such publication is sine qua non under Section 505. The words "whoever makes, publishes or circulates" used in the setting of Section 505(2) cannot be interpreted disjunctively but only as supplementary to each other. If it is construed disjunctively, any one who makes a statement falling within the meaning of Section 505 would, without publication or circulation, be liable to conviction. But the same is the effect with Section 153A also and then that Section would have been bad for redundancy. The intention of the legislature in providing two different sections on the same subject would have been to cover two different fields of similar colour. The fact that both sections were included as a package in the same amending enactment lends further support to the said construction.

13. xxx

14. In Sunilakhya Chowdhury vs. H.M. Jadwet and another (AIR 1968 Calcutta 266) it has been held that the words "makes or publishes any imputation" should be interpreted as words supplementing each other. A maker of imputation without publication is not liable to be punished under that section. We are of the view that the same interpretation is warranted in respect of the words "makes, publishes or circulates" in Section 505 IPC also.

15. The common feature in both sections being promotion of feeling of enmity, hatred or ill-will "between different" religious or racial or language or regional groups or castes and communities it is necessary that atleast two such groups or communities should be involved. Merely inciting the felling of one community or group without any

10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:4448 CRL.P No. 10145 of 2024

reference to any other community or group cannot attract either of the two sections.

16. The result of the said discussion is that appellant who has not done anything as against any religious, racial or linguistic or regional group or community cannot be held guilty of either the offence under Section 153A or under Section 505(2) of IPC. ”

(Emphasis supplied)

Later, the Apex Court in the case of MANZAR SAYEED

KHAN V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in (2007) 5 SCC 1

“….

15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The question to be decided now is whether the paragraph complained of would attract the penal consequences envisaged in Section 153-A IPC. Section 153-A IPC was amended by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1969 (Act 35 of 1969). It consists of three clauses of which clauses ( a ) and ( b ) alone are material for the case on hand, which read as under:

“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—

( a ) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious,

11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:4448 CRL.P No. 10145 of 2024

racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or

( b ) commits 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 tranquility, or

( c )***

shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

16. Section 153-A IPC, as extracted hereinabove, covers a case where a person by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, 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 or acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity. The gist of the offence is the intention to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of people. The intention to cause disorder or incite the people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence under Section 153-A IPC and the prosecution has to prove prima facie the existence of mens rea on the part of the accused. The intention has to be judged primarily by the language of the book and the circumstances in which the book was written and published. The matter complained of within the ambit of Section 153-A must be read as a whole. One cannot rely on strongly worded and isolated passages for proving the charge nor indeed can one take a sentence here and a sentence there and connect them by a meticulous process of inferential reasoning.

17. In Ramesh v. Union of India [(1988) 1 SCC 668 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 266 : AIR 1988 SC 775] this Court held that TV serial Tamas did not depict communal tension and violence and the provisions of Section 153-A IPC would not apply to it. It was also not prejudicial to the national integration falling under Section 153-B IPC. Approving the observations of Vivian Bose, J. in Bhagwati Charan

12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:4448 CRL.P No. 10145 of 2024

Shukla v. Provincial Govt. [AIR 1947 Nag 1] the Court observed that

“the effect of the words must be judged from the standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous men, and not those of weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point of view. … It is the standard of ordinary reasonable man or as they say in English law ‘the man on the top of a Clapham omnibus’.” ( Ramesh case [(1988) 1 SCC 668 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 266 : AIR 1988 SC 775] , SCC p. 676, para 13)

18. Again in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P. [(1997) 7 SCC 431 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1094] it is held that the common feature in both the sections viz. Sections 153-A and 505(2), being promotion of feeling of enmity, hatred or ill will “between different” religious or racial or linguistic or regional groups or castes and communities, it is necessary that at least two such groups or communities should be involved. Further, it was observed that merely inciting the feeling of one community or group without any reference to any other community or group cannot attract either of the two sections.

19. Prof. James W. Laine, the author of the book, has exercised his reason and his own analytical skills before choosing any literature which he intends to include in his book. Even if the appellant Manzar Sayeed Khan, a constituted attorney of Oxford University Press, India and the appellant Vinod Hansraj Goyal, proprietor of Rashtriya Printing Press, Shahdara, Delhi, or the persons whose names are mentioned in the acknowledgment by the author, have provided information for the purpose, including the said paragraph in the book, it is important and worth observing that the author has mentioned that BORI, Pune has been his scholarly home in India and many people therein helped him for collecting the material. The author has given the names of many persons, who had helped him in one way or the other and enlightened him about the history of the historical hero “Shivaji”. The author has also mentioned in the book about the International Conference on Maharashtra, etc. which has

13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:4448 CRL.P No. 10145 of 2024

given him a lot of material for inclusion in his book. As it appears from the records, BORI, Pune was established almost 90 years back and it has a great tradition of scholarly work. It is very improbable to imagine that any serious and intense scholar will attempt to malign the image of this glorious institute. The author thought his work to be worthy of dedication to his mother, Marie Whitwell Laine, which was purely a scholarly pursuit and without any intention or motive to involve himself in trouble. It is the sole responsibility of the State to make positive efforts to resolve every possible conflict between any of the communities, castes or religions within the State and try every possible way to establish peace and harmony within the State under every and all circumstances.

20. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 : AIR 1992 SC 604] this Court has observed that an FIR can be quashed if it does not disclose an offence and there is no need for any investigation or recording of any statement.”

(Emphasis supplied)

If the complaint as afore-quoted is considered on the touchstone of the principles elucidated by the Apex Court in the judgments afore-quoted, the inevitable inference would be obliteration of the crime.

It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the

Apex Court rendered in the case of STATE OF HARYANA V. BHAJAN LAL reported in 1992 Supp. 1 SCC 335, wherein the Apex Court holds as follows:

14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:4448 CRL.P No. 10145 of 2024

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that

15 -

NC: 2025:KHC:4448 CRL.P No. 10145 of 2024

there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

(Emphasis supplied)

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

a. The criminal petition is allowed.

b. The impugned crime in Crime No.131/2023, pending before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Siggaon, Haveri, qua the petitioner, stands quashed.

SD/-___

JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

NVJ

List No.: 19 Sl No.: 24 CT:SS