Ajay Kumar Gaali @ Gaali Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION AND QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.452/2023 REGISTERED FOR OFFENCE P/U/S.124-A,505(1)(c),505(2) OF IPC FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT BEFORE SIRA POLICE STATION, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION AND CJM COURT, SIRA, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.452/2023 pending before the Court of the Prinicpal Civil Judge, Senior Division and CJM Court Sira, Tumakuru District is sought to be quashed in this petition preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶24

Heard both sides and perused the material on

¶25

record.

¶26

On a complaint lodged by one Vijayaraj. M. S/o.

¶27

Malleshappa, a case was registered against petitioner in Crime No.231/2020 at Sira Police Station, Tumakuru for

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10210 CRL.P No. 13384 of 2023

¶29

the offence punishable under Section 124-A, 505(1)(C), 505(2) of IPC.

¶30

In the complaint it is alleged that the petitioner

¶31

has posted certain anti-national comments on 21.06.2020 in his facebook account etc.

¶32

Learned counsel for petitioner has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in VINOD DUO V/s. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (2021) 12 SCR 1071, wherein it is held that "Section 124A and 505 comes into play only when the words or expression have pernicious tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order". It is the contention of the learned counsel that even accepting the case of the prosecution, comments in the face book were not made with the intent to incite people or showed tendency to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence.

¶33

Reliance is also placed on a decision of the

¶34

Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2022 Live law (SC) 470

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:10210 CRL.P No. 13384 of 2023

¶37

in the case of S.G. VOMBATKERE V/s. UNION OF INDIA wherein, the Supreme Court passed a direction to keep in abeyance of all pending trials, appeals and proceedings with respect to the charge framed under Section 124-A of IPC.

¶38

The relevant paragraph No.8 of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.G.VombatKere stated supra is extracted herein under:

¶39

8. In view of the clear stand taken by the Union of India, we deem it appropriate to pass the following order in the interest of justice:

¶40

a. The interim stay granted in W.P.(Crl.)No.217/2021 along with W.P.(Crl.)No.216/2021 vide order dated 31.05.2021 shall continue to operate till further orders.

¶41

b. We hope and expect that the State and Central Governments will restrain from registering any FIR, continuing any investigation or taking any coercive measures by invoking Section 124A of IPC while the aforesaid provision of law is under consideration.

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:10210 CRL.P No. 13384 of 2023

¶44

c. If any fresh case is registered under Section 124A of IPC, the affected parties are at liberty to approach the concerned Courts for appropriate relief. The Courts are requested to examine the reliefs sought, taking into account the present order passed as well as the clear stand taken by the Union of India.

¶45

d. All pending trials, appeals and proceedings with respect to the charge framed under Section 124A of IPC be kept in abeyance. Adjudication with respect to other Sections, if any, could proceed if the Courts are of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the accused.

¶46

e. In addition to the above, the Union of India shall be at liberty to issue the Directive as proposed and placed before us, to the State Governments/Union Territories to prevent any misuse of Section 124A of IPC.

¶47

f. The above directions may continue till further orders are passed.

¶48

As per the above order, it was expected that the State and Central Government will restrain from

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:10210 CRL.P No. 13384 of 2023

¶51

registering any FIR, continuing any investigation or taking any coercive measures by invoking Section 124-A of IPC.

¶52

9. In BALWANT SINGH & Anr. V/s. STATE OF

¶53

PUNJAB reported in (1995) 3 SCC 214, the Hon'ble

¶54

Apex Court has held as under:

¶55

‘ A plain reading of the above Section would show that its application would be attracted only when the accused brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India, by words either written or spoken or visible signs or representations etc. Keeping in view the prosecution evidence that the slogans as noticed above were raised a couple of times only by the appellant and that neither the slogans evoked a response from any other person of the Sikh community or reaction from people of other communities, we find it difficult to hold that upon the raising of such casual slogans, a couple of times without any other act whatsoever the charge of sedition can be founded. It is not the prosecution case that the appellants were either leading a procession or were otherwise raising the slogans with the intention to incite people to create disorder or that the slogans in fact created any law and order problem. It does not appear to us that the police should have attached much significance to the casual slogans raised by two appellants, a couple of times and read to much into them. The prosecution has admitted that no disturbance, whatsoever, was caused by the raising of the slogans by the appellants and that inspite of the fact that the appellants raised the

¶56

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10210 CRL.P No. 13384 of 2023

¶57

slogans a couple of times, the people, in general, were un-affected and carried on with their normal activities. The casual raising of the Slogans, once or twice by two individuals alone cannot be said to be aimed at exciting or attempt to excite hatred or disaffection towards the Government as established by law in India, Section 124A IPC, would in the facts and circumstances of the case have no application whatsoever and would not be attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶58

12. ……………… In situations like that, over-sensitiveness sometimes is counter-productive and can result in inviting trouble. Raising of some lonesome slogans, a couple of times by two individuals, without anything more, did not constitute any threat to the Government of India as by law established nor could the same give rise to feelings of enmity or hatred among different communities or religious or other groups.”

¶59

10. In KEDAR NATH SINGH V. STATE OF BIHAR

¶60

reported in 1962 SCC OnLine SC 6 in para nos. 24 to 26

¶61

of the judgment, it is held as under:-

¶62

“....….That is why “sedition”, as the offence in Section 124A has been characterised, comes, under Chapter VI relating to offences against the State. Hence, any acts within the meaning of Section 124-A which have the effect of subverting the Government by bringing that Government into contempt or hatred, or creating disaffection against it, would be within the penal statute because the feeling of disloyalty to the Government established by law or enmity to it imports the idea of tendency to public disorder by the

¶63

8 -

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC:10210 CRL.P No. 13384 of 2023

¶65

use of actual violence or incitement to violence. In other words, any written or spoken words, etc. which have implicit in them the idea of subverting Government by violent means, which are compendiously included in the term “revolution”, have been made penal by the section in question. But the section has taken care to indicate clearly that strong words used to express disapprobation of the measures of Government with a view to their improvement or alteration by lawful means would not come within the section. Similarly, comments, however strongly worded, expressing disapprobation of actions of the Government, without exciting those feelings which generate the inclination to cause public disorder by acts of violence, would not be penal. In other words, disloyalty to Government established by law is not the same thing as commenting in strong terms upon the measures or acts of Government, or its agencies, so as to ameliorate the condition of the people or to secure the cancellation or alteration of those acts or measures by lawful means, that is to say, without exciting those feelings of enmity and disloyalty which imply excitement to public disorder or the use of violence.

¶66

25. It has not been contended before us that if a speech or a writing excites people to violence or have the tendency to create public disorder, it would not come within the definition of “sedition”. What has been contended is that a person who makes a very strong speech or uses very vigorous words in a writing directed to a very strong criticism of measures of Government or acts of public officials, might also come within the ambit of the penal section. But in our opinion, such words written or spoken would be outside the scope of the section. In this connection, it is pertinent to observe that the security of the State, which depends

¶67

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10210 CRL.P No. 13384 of 2023

¶68

upon the maintenance of law and order is the very basic consideration upon which legislation, with a view to punishing offences against the State, is undertaken……………………….

¶69

26…………………………………It is only when the words, written or spoken, etc. which have the pernicious tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order that the law steps in to prevent such activities in the interest of public order. So construed, the section, in our opinion, strikes the correct balance between individual fundamental rights and the interest of public order. It is also well settled that in interpreting an enactment the Court should have regard not merely to the literal meaning of the words used, but also take into consideration the antecedent history of the legislation, its purpose and the mischief it seeks to suppress ………….’’

¶70

From the above, it is evident that in cases involving Section 124A of the IPC, casual or rhetorical statements do not amount to sedition unless they incite violence or public disorder. Therefore, there must be a direct nexus between the impugned act and the likelihood of causing disharmony or hatred.

¶71

In the present case, as there is no evidence on record indicating that any violence occurred as a result of the slogans raised despite being published on a social

¶72

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:10210 CRL.P No. 13384 of 2023

¶73

media platform, and in the light of the above decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the continuation of the impugned

¶74

FIR and the consequential proceedings against the petitioner for the offence under Section 124-A, 505(1)(c), 505(2) of the IPC amounts to an abuse of the process of law.

¶75