Sri Basanagouda R Patil (Yatnal) v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Jun 2026CRL.P/12806/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Basanagouda R Patil (Yatnal), MLA Vijayapura — CRL.P No.12806/2024, Karnataka HC (19-06-2026, M.Nagaprasanna J) — quashing of FIR Crime No.264/2024, Mudhol PS, over Ganesha-festival speech alleged to promote enmity (S.505(2)/S.153A IPC; Ss.353(2)/196(1)(a) BNS) — applied Bilal Ahmed Kaloo (1997) 7 SCC 431, Manzar Sayeed Khan (2007) 5 SCC 1, Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Javed Ahmad Hajam (2024) 4 SCC 156; followed Crl.P.No.10145/2024 — petition allowed, FIR quashed qua petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; proceedings pending in Crime No.264/2024 quashed qua the petitioner. ¶¶218

Sri Basanagouda R Patil (Yatnal) Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; proceedings pending in Crime No.264/2024 quashed qua the petitioner.

¶¶218

Issue for consideration

Whether the complaint forming the basis of FIR in Crime No.264/2024 meets the ingredients of the offence under Section 505(2) IPC / Section 353(2) BNS, 2023 so as to sustain the proceedings against the petitioner. +1 more

¶¶35

Court's answer

The complaint in Crime No.264/2024 does not attract the ingredients of Section 505(2) IPC / Section 353(2) BNS, 2023; on the touchstone of Bilal Ahmed Kaloo (1997) 7 SCC 431, Manzar Sayeed Khan (2007) 5 SCC 1 and this Court's ruling in Crl.P.No.10145/2024 (30.01.2025) rendered on identical facts, the petition deserves to succeed.

¶¶215

Ratio / Principle

The Section 153A IPC count likewise fails: applying Javed Ahmad Hajam (2024) 4 SCC 156, the alleged speech does not disclose promotion of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups, and the proceedings in Crime No.264/2024 therefore stand quashed qua the petitioner.

¶¶215

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. (S.528 BNSS) by an MLA challenging FIR in Crime No.264/2024 of Mudhol Police Station (Bagalkot), registered on a suo motu complaint alleging that his speech at a Ganesha Festival gathering at Mudhol promoted enmity/hatred between religious communities — offences cast as Sections 191(1)(a)/353(2) BNS in the prayer and Sections 196(1)(a)/353(3) BNS in the order, analysed as the equivalents of Sections 505(2) and 153A IPC. Relying on Bilal Ahmed Kaloo (1997) 7 SCC 431 (enmity must be 'between different' groups; mens rea essential; 'makes, publishes or circulates' read conjunctively), Manzar Sayeed Khan (2007) 5 SCC 1 (intention is the sine qua non; matter must be read as a whole), State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 (FIR quashable where no offence disclosed) and Javed Ahmad Hajam (2024) 4 SCC 156 (dissent/protest protected; effect judged by the standard of reasonable persons), and following this Court's earlier ruling in Crl.P.No.10145/2024 (30.01.2025) on identical facts, the Court held the ingredients were not met even to their semblance. Petition allowed; Crime No.264/2024 quashed qua the petitioner. (M.Nagaprasanna, J.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:30519 CRL.P No. 12806 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12806 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI BASANAGOUDA R PATIL (YATNAL) S/O RAMANAGOUDA B PATIL AGED 61 YEARS

¶10

OCC MLA VIJAYAPURA CONSTITUENCY OLD IB, STATION ROAD, VIJAYAPURA - 586 101 KARNATAKA ALSO AT SINDAGI ROAD MAHAL AINAPUR AINAPURA BIJAPUR KARNATAKA - 586 104

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. VENKATESH DALWAI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MUDHOL POLICE STATION

¶16

BAGALKOT-583236 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP)

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING

¶20

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:30519 CRL.P No. 12806 of 2024

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED QUASH FIR IN CR.NO.264/2024 REGISTERED BY THE MUDHOL POLICE STATION, PENDING XLII ADDL. CMM COURT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 191(1)(a) AND 353(2) OF BNS, 2023 PRODUCED AT DOCUMENT NO.1.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

¶25

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the registration of a crime in Crime No.264/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 196(1)(a) and 353(3) of the BNS, 2023.

¶29

2. Heard Sri. Venkatesh Dalwai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned HCGP appearing for the respondent and have perused the material on record.

¶30

3. The petitioner, a member of the Legislative Assembly gets embroiled in a crime in Crime No.264/2024 for

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:30519 CRL.P No. 12806 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

the afore-quoted offences. It is the case of the respondentpolice that while registering a suo moto case against the petitioner, that the petitioner was invited to speak at a Ganesha Festival on 19.09.2024 and has allegedly given a speech that would become the ingredients of Section 505(2)

¶34

of the IPC or 353(2) of the BNS, 2023. The said suo motu complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.264/2024. Registration of the crime has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

¶35

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the ingredients of the offence under Section 505(2) of the IPC or Section 353(2) or the BNS is not met even to its semblance and would seek to place reliance upon the judgment of this Court on the same issue on identical set of facts. This Court in Crl.P.No.10145/2024 dated 30.01.2025, has held as follows:

¶36

"7. 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:

¶37

"UÉ

¶38

�ಾನ� � ಎ� ಐ �ಾನೂನು ಮತು� ಸುವ�ವ�ೆ�

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:30519 CRL.P No. 12806 of 2024

HC-KAR

ಬಂ�ಾಪ�ರ ��ೕಸ �ಾ�ೆ .

�ಾನ��ೆ ,

�ಾನು ! "ೊಡ$ಮ%, � ಎ� ಐ ತ%&ಾ '(ಾಗ, ವಯಸು+ 52 ವಷ-, ಉ"ೊ�ೕಗ � ಎ� ಐ ಬಂ�ಾಪ�ರ ��ೕಸ �ಾ�ೆ , /ೕ0ೈ2 ನಂಬರ: 9480796063 %ೕಡುವ ಗಣ4ೕಕೃತ ಸ�ಾ-7 ತ�ೕ- ದೂರು. 9�ಾಂಕ: 13-10-2023 �ೇ ಇ;< ತರು=ಾಯ.

¶45

�ಾನು ಕ>ೆದ ಒಂದು ವಷ-9ಂದ ಬಂ�ಾಪ�ರ ��ೕಸ �ಾ�ೆಯ�@ ತ%&ಾ '(ಾಗದ � ಎ� ಐ ಅಂBಾ ಕತ-ವ� %ವ-CಸುDಾ� ಬಂ9ದುE ಇರುತ�"ೆ .

¶46

9�ಾಂಕ: 07-10-2023 ರಂದು Cಂದೂ ಮFಾಗಣಪG �ೇ=ಾ ಸHG 7 �ೆಹರು Jಾಡ-K ಕHೕL ಬಂ�ಾಪ�ರ ಆ 9ನ �ಾಯಂ�ಾಲ OPೕ ಬಸನJೌಡ �ಾಮನJೌಡ RಾLೕಲ �ಾ: ಯDಾSಳ Uಾಸಕರು 'ಜಯಪ�ರ 'Wಾನಸ(ಾ XೇತP ಇವರು ಗಣಪG 'Uೇಷ ಪYZೆJೆ ಆಗHಸುG�ದುE, Cಂದೂ ಮFಾ ಗಣಪG �ೇ=ಾ ಸHG ವG[ಂದ Cಂದೂ ಜನ ZಾಗೃG ಸ�ಾ=ೇಶದ�@ (ಾಷಣ �ಾಡುವವರು ಇ"ಾE�ೆ ಅಂDಾ 0ಾG] ^ೕ�ೆJೆ �ಾ�ೆ[ಂದ ನನJೆ ಮತು� ಎ.ಎ�.ಐ ಎK ಅಗ;ಮ%, ಮತು� ;ಬ_ಂ9ಯವ�ಾದ Fೆ` ; 996, 1433, �; 1133, 1136, 882, 931 ಇವ7Jೆ ಕತ-ವ��ೆa %bೕ!;ದುE ಇದುE ಅದರಂDೆ �ಾಯಂ�ಾಲ ಬಸನJೌಡ �ಾಮನJೌಡ RಾLೕಲ �ಾ: ಯDಾSಳ ಇವರು ಮತು� ಇತರರು 0ೈc ZಾDಾದ ಮೂಲಕ ಬಂದು ಗಣಪGJೆ ಪY!; ನಂತರ �ೇ7"ೆ . ಜನರನುS ಉ"ೆEೕO; ಆ 9ನ 9�ಾಂಕ: 07-10-2023 ರಂದು 18-10 ಗಂdೆJೆ Cಂದೂ ಮFಾ ಗಣಪG �ೇ=ಾ ಸHG ವG[ಂದ Cಂದೂ ಜನ ZಾಗೃG ಸ�ಾ=ೇಶವ� ಜರುeದುE ಸದರ Cಂದೂ ಜನZಾಗೃG ಸ�ಾ=ೇಶದ Cಂದು ಮFಾ ಸ(ಾ ಗಣಪG �ೇ=ಾ ಸHG, ಅಂದ�ೆ ಶ4�, ಗಣಪG ಎಂದ�ೆ ಮು4�, ಬಂ�ಾಪ�ರದ ಗಣಪG ಶ4� /ದಲು. JೊG�ರ�fಾ@, ಗಣಪGಯನುS ಸ<ಲg ತBೆಯುವ ಪPಯತS �ಾh"ಾಗ ನಮ] ಗಣಪನ ಶ4� ಇh ಕನSಡ �ಾhJೆ Gi[ತು. �ಾಂJೆP� ಸ�ಾ-ರ ಬDಾ- ಇದE FಾJೆ 0ೆಳJಾ'ಯ�@ Rಾ4�ಾ�ನ ಧkಜ Fಾ9"ೆ ಅವ�ೆಲ@ ಸ�ಾ-ರದ /ಮ]ಕaಳl ಇದು ಗಣಪG ಭಕ�ರ ಶ4�, �ಾ=ೆfಾ@ UೆPೕಷn=ಾದ ಸ�ಾತನ ಧಮ-�ೆa �ೇ7ದವರು, 'ಶ<ದ ಕfಾ�ಣ�ಾae ಇರುವರು, ಇದನುS �ೆಲವರು ಅವFೇಳನ �ಾಡುG�"ಾE�ೆ , ನನJೆ ಅ�ಾ�ಯ=ಾದ�ೆ ಸುಮ]�ೆ ಕೂಡುವ�9fಾ@. (ಾರತ "ೇಶ ಈ ಸಂಸpGಯ ಆWಾರದ ^ೕfೆ ಎಲ@ರನುS ಒಗೂqh;�ೊಂಡು ಬಂ9"ೆ . ಆದ�ೆ �ೆಲವ� "ೇಶಗಳ�@ ಈ ಸಂಸpG ಇfಾ@ ನಮ] ಸಂಸpGಯ 'ರುದr �ಾತ�ಾಡುವರ 'ರುದr ಧk% ಎತ�ಲು �ಾ=ೆfಾ@ ಒಂ"ಾಗ0ೇಕು. �ೆಲವ7Jೆ (ಾರತ ಶ4�Uಾ�sಾಗುವ�ದು, ಸುಭದP=ಾeರಲು ಇtಾu ಇfಾ@, ನಮ] ಸರ�ಾರದ�@ sಾವ�"ೇ ಗಲ0ೆsಾ"ಾಗ �ಾವ� ದಂJೆ�ೋಧ7Jೆ ತಕa OXೆ %ೕh"ೆEವ�, �ಾಂJೆPೕ� ಸರ�ಾರ ಬಂದ ^ೕfೆ 0ೆಳJಾ'ಯ�@ Rಾ4�ಾ�ನದ ಧkZಾ Fಾ�ಾh"ೆ . ಧkಜ Fಾ�ಾh;ದವರು Rಾ4�ಾ�ನದ /ಮ]ಕaಳl.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:30519 CRL.P No. 12806 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Oವ/ಗq, �ೋfಾರದ�@ ಗಲ(ೆಗ>ಾe"ೆ . �ೕ�ಸರ ^ೕfೆ ಕಲು@ ತು�ಾhದುE ಸಣvಘಟ�ೆ ಎಂದು FೇಳlG�"ಾE�ೆ , ನಮ] ಹುಡುಗುರು ಇ�ೊSಬ_ರ =ೇಶ Fಾ4�ೊಂಡು ಗಲ(ೆ �ಾಡುವಂತ Fೇhಗಳಲ@.

¶51

�ೆಲವ7Jೆ ಗಣಪನ ^ರವyJೆ ಅವರ ಓyಯ�@ Fೋದ�ೆ ಉ7ಯುತ�"ೆ . ಈ ಮಕaಳl ನಮ] "ೇಶದ ಅನS Gಂದು Rಾ4�ಾ�K !ಂ"ಾ0ಾ{ ಅನುSG�"ಾE�ೆ . 2024ರ ನಂತರ Rಾ4�ಾ�ನ ದ�@ ಗಣಪGಯನುS ಪPGtಾnಪ�ೆ �ಾಡುDೆ�ೕ=ೆ . Rಾ4�ಾ�ನದ ಯುವಕರು /ೕ9 ಪPWಾ% 0ೇಕು ಅಂDಾ�ೆ , ನಮ] �ೆಲವರು Rಾ4�ಾ�ನ 4 Zೈ ಅಂDಾರು Fೈ0ೆP| ತiಯ �ಾಯಕರು ಮು;@ಂ�ೆfಾ@ ನಮJೆ ಓಟು Fಾ4"ಾE�ೆ ಎಂದು Fೇi�ೊಳl}Dಾ � ೆ . CಂದುಗiJೆ ಒಂ"ಾe ಒಂದುಕBೆ ಒdಾue ಓಟು Fಾಕಲು ಶ4�ವಂತ�ಾಗ0ೇಕು. �ಾವ� Cಂದುಗಳl "ಾH-ಕ ಕುಟುಂಬ ಎನುSವ�ದನುS Rಾ�ಸುDೆ�ೕ=ೆ ನಮ] ಸಂ�ಾaರ, ಅದು ನಮ] ಬಲCೕನDೆಯfಾ@, ಸ�ಾಥನ ಧಮ-ವನುS Fಾಳl �ಾಡಲು ಇGFಾಸದ�@ ಎಂDೆಂತವರ ಪPಯತS ಪಟuರು ನಮ] ಸ�ಾತನ ಧಮ-ವನುS 4ಂ•ತು� ಅiJಾhಸಲು ಆefಾ@, ಈ ಬಂಡು�ೋರರು ನಮ]�ೆSೕನು �ಾಡಲು ಆಗುತ�"ೆ ? ನಲವತು� ವಷ-9ಂದ ಈ ಬಂ�ಾಪ�ರದ ಸಂಘಟ�ೆ ಭ�ಷu=ಾಗತ�fೆ ಬರುG�"ೆ �ಾನು Zಾಪ�ರದ�@ ನನJೆ �ಾಬರ ಓಟು 0ೇ�ಾeಲ@ ಅಂತ Fೇi"ೆEೕ=ೆ ನಮ]ವದು ಸಂಘಟ�ೆsಾe"ಾE�ೆ ನಮ]ವ�ೇ €ೕಟು Fಾ4ದ�ೆ �ಾಕು 20 ವಷ-ದ Cಂ"ೆ ಕನSಡ ಕ�;ದ ^ೕಡಂJೆ ಕನSಡ ಕ�ತ ಹುಡುಗ�ೇ ^ೕಡಮ]%Jೆ ಕಲು@ ಒJೆಯಲು Fೋe"ಾE�ೆ . ಅಕu• ಎಂದೂ ಮುಂ"ೆ ಬಂದು ಯುದr �ಾhಲ@. ಈಗ ಈ ಮಕaಳl ನಮJೆ ಜಂ0ೆ Dೋ7ಸುDಾ � ೆ ನಮ] ಮ�ೆಯ�@ಯ ಜಂ0ೆ ಉ>ಾ}ಗh$ Fೆ‚ಾƒc ಇಲ@. ಮುಸfಾ]ನರು ಎಂದೂ ನಮ] ಅಣv ತಮ]ಂ9ರು ಆಗುವ�9ಲ@ %ೕವ� ಸುಮ]�ೆ Giದು�ೊಂh9Eೕ7 0ಾ[ 0ಾ[ ಅಂತ FೇಳlG�9Eೕ7 ಆದ�ೆ ಅವರು ತಮ] ಬು9EಯನುS Dೋ7ಸ"ೇ ಡುವ�9ಲ@. ಮುಸfಾ]ನರು ಅವರು ನಮJೆ ಎಂದೂ Cಂದುಗಳl ಅನುSವ�9ಲ@ ನಮ] =ೈ7ಗಳl ಅಂತ FೇಳlDಾ � ೆ ಆ =ೇ>ೆಯ�@ %ೕವ� FೇJೆ ಅಣv-ತಮ]ಂ9�ಾಗುG�ೕ7. %ೕವ� sಾ=ಾಗfಾದರೂ ಮ;ೕ9 ^ೕfೆ "ಾi �ಾh9Eೕ�ಾ ಆದ�ೆ Oವ/ಗqದ�@ Cಂದುಗಳ ^ೕfೆ "ಾi �ಾh"ಾE�ೆ . sಾವ ಸು>ೇಮಗ ಅವ ಔರಂಗZೇಬ, ಅಕu•, ಮFಾ�ಾ�ಾ ಪPDಾಪ ಅಂದ�ೆ ಚh$ಯ�@ ಹು‚ೆƒ ಹುಯುE�ೊಳl}G�ದE. ನಮ] Cಂದು ಶ4�ಯನುS Dೋ7ಸ0ೇಕು ಅಂತ ಮುಂDಾe �ಾತ�ಾhದರು. ಸದ7ಯವರು (ಾಷಣವನುS �ಾಯಂ�ಾಲ 06-10 ಘಂdೆJೆ RಾPರಂಭ=ಾe 07-30 ಘಂdೆJೆ (ಾಷಣ ಮು�ಾ�ಯ ಆeದುE ಇರುತ�"ೆ . ಬಸನJೌಡ �ಾಮನJೌಡ RಾLೕಲ �ಾಃ ಯDಾSಳ ಇವರು ''ಧ ಗುಂಪ�, ZಾGZಾGಗಳ ಮದ�, "ೆ<ೕಷವನುSಂಟು �ಾಡುವ�ದು ಮತು� ಸFೌಧ-DೆJೆ 0ಾದಕ=ಾಗುವ ಕೃತ�ಗಳನುS �ಾಡಲು (ಾಷಣ9ಂದ ''ಧ ಮGೕಯ ಮೂಲವಂOಯ ಮತು� �ೋಮುಗಳ ನಡು=ೆ ಅ�ೌFಾಧ-ವನುS ಅಥ=ಾ =ೈರ, "ೆ<ೕಷ, =ೈಮನ;+K (ಾವ�ೆಗಳನುS Fೆ•ƒಸಲು �ಾವ-ಜ%ಕ �ೆಡು4Jೆ �ಾರಣ=ಾಗುವ ಮGೕಯ "ೆ<ೕಷ(ಾಷಣ �ಾhದುE ಇರುತ�"ೆ .

¶52

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:30519 CRL.P No. 12806 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

ಆ �ಾಲ�ೆa �ಾನು �ಾಯ-cರಮದ RಾPರಂಭ9ಂದ ಮು�ಾ�ಯ=ಾಗುವವ�ೆಗೂ ಬಂ"ೋಬ�� ಕತ-ವ� %ವ-ಹ�ೆ"ೊಂ9Jೆ �ಾನು �ೇi;�ೊಂhದುE, ಮತು� �ೋhದುE �ಾ�ೆಯ ;ಬ_ಂ9ಗಳl ಅಲ@"ೇ � .; 931 �ೇದವರು (ಾಷಣವನುS �ಾ�ೆಯ �ಾ��ಾ�ಾದ�@ •GPಕ7;ದುE, ಈ 9ನ �ಾ�ೆಯ ;ಬ_ಂ9 'hbೕವನುS ; h ಮೂಲಕ ತುಂ ;�ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು Fಾಜರಪh;ದುE, ಈಗ �ೋh &ಾGP�ಾh�ೊಂಡು ತಡ=ಾe ದೂರು %ೕhದುE ಆ"ೆ . ಬಸನJೌಡ �ಾಮನJೌಡ RಾLೕಲ �ಾ: ಯDಾSಳ ಇವರ ^ೕfೆ ಕಲಂ 505(2) ಐ�; �ೇದEರ ಅhಯ�@ ಸ�ಾ-7 ತ�- ದೂರು ಇರುತ�"ೆ .

¶56

ತಮ] 'Uಾ<;."

¶57

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.

¶58

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

¶59

" 505. Statements conducing to public mischief .

¶60

(1) xxx

¶61

(2) Statements creating or promoting enmity,

¶62

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

¶63

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:

¶64

¶65

NC: 2026:KHC:30519 CRL.P No. 12806 of 2024

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

“…. …. ….

¶68

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:

¶69

"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

¶70

(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 tranquillity, or

¶71

¶72

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

¶73

505(2) Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill- will between classes.Whoever makes, publishes or

¶74

¶75

NC: 2026:KHC:30519 CRL.P No. 12806 of 2024

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

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 illwill 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."

¶78

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.

¶79

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 subsection.

¶80

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

¶81

¶82

NC: 2026:KHC:30519 CRL.P No. 12806 of 2024

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

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.

¶85

13. xxx

¶86

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.

¶87

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 reference to any other community or

¶88

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:30519 CRL.P No. 12806 of 2024

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

group cannot attract either of the two sections.

¶91

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.”

¶92

(Emphasis supplied)

¶93

Later, the Apex Court in the case of MANZAR SAYEED KHAN V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in (2007) 5 SCC 1

¶94

“…. …. ….

¶95

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:

¶96

“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—

¶97

(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

¶98

11 -

¶99

NC: 2026:KHC:30519 CRL.P No. 12806 of 2024

¶100

HC-KAR

¶101

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

¶102

¶103

(c)***

¶104

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

¶105

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

¶106

12 -

¶107

NC: 2026:KHC:30519 CRL.P No. 12806 of 2024

¶108

HC-KAR

¶109

there and connect them by a meticulous process of inferential reasoning.

¶110

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

¶111

“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)

¶112

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.

¶113

13 -

¶114

NC: 2026:KHC:30519 CRL.P No. 12806 of 2024

¶115

HC-KAR

¶116

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 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.

¶117

20 . In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri)

¶118

14 -

¶119

NC: 2026:KHC:30519 CRL.P No. 12806 of 2024

¶120

HC-KAR

¶121

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.”

¶122

(Emphasis supplied)

¶123

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.

¶124

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:

¶125

“ 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.

¶126

(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.

¶127

(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

¶128

15 -

¶129

NC: 2026:KHC:30519 CRL.P No. 12806 of 2024

¶130

HC-KAR

¶131

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.

¶132

(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.

¶133

(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.

¶134

(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 there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶135

(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.

¶136

(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.”

¶137

(Emphasis supplied)

¶138

16 -

¶139

NC: 2026:KHC:30519 CRL.P No. 12806 of 2024

¶140

HC-KAR

¶141

10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶142

ORDER

¶143

a. The criminal petition is allowed.

¶144

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."

¶145

5. Learned HCGP though would refute the submission

¶146

of the learned counsel appearing for the counsel for the petitioner would not dispute the position of law as laid down by this Court in the afore-extracted judgment.

¶147

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

¶148

7. Since the entire issue is now triggered from the complaint and the complaint triggering from the incident that happens on 20.09.2024, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint in its entirety, which reads as follows:

¶149

¢£ÁAPÀ:20.09.2024 ಮುWೋಳ ��ೕ� �ಾ�ೆ

¶150

UÉ

¶151

17 -

¶152

NC: 2026:KHC:30519 CRL.P No. 12806 of 2024

¶153

HC-KAR

¶154

��ೕ� ಸˆ ಇನ+Rೆಕu•(�ಾ&ಸು)

¶155

ಮುWೋಳ ��ೕಸ �ಾ�ೆ ಇವ7Jೆ ,

¶156

�ಾನ��ೆ ,

¶157

�ಾನು �ೆ . . �ಾಂಗ ವsಾ: 59 ವಷ- ��ೕ� ಸˆ ಇನ+Rೆಕu•(ಅ.') ಮುWೋಳ ��ೕ� �ಾ�ೆ /0ೈ2 ನಂ: 9663057599 ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ಗಣ4ೕಕರಣ �ಾh;�ೊಂಡು ಸ.ತ ‰sಾ-9 ಏ�ೆಂದ�ೆ ,

¶158

�ಾನು ಈಗ 4 ವಷ-ಗiಂದ ಮುWೋಳ ��ೕ� �ಾ�ೆಯ�@ ��ೕ� ಸˆ ಇನ+Rೆಕu•(ಅ.') ಅಂDಾ ಕತ-ವ� %ವ-CಸುG�"ೆEೕ�ೆ .

¶159

%�ೆSಯ 9ವಸ 9�ಾಂಕ: 19.09.2024 ರಂದು ಮುWೋಳ ಶಹರದ ಜನDಾ Rಾ@Lನ�@ರುವ Cಂದೂ ಮFಾಗಣಪG ಜನDಾ �ಾZಾ ಗ�ೇಶ 'ಸಜ-�ೆ �ಾಯ-ಕPಮ ಹH]�ೊಂhದುE, ಆ �ಾಲ�ೆa ªÀiÁ£Àå J¸ï ¦ �ಾFೇಬರು Fಾಗೂ �ಾನ� Fೆಚುƒವ7 ಎ�� ಾFೇಬರು 0ಾಗಲ�ೋdೆ ರವರ ಉಸು�=ಾ7ಯ�@ ಮತು� �ಾನ� hಎ�� ಾFೇಬರು ಜಮಖಂh, �ಾನ� ;�ಐ ಮುWೋಳ ರವರ �ೇತೃತ<ದ�@ 0ಾಗಲ�ೋಟ !fೆ@ಯ ��ೕ� ಅŒ�ಾ7ಗಳl ಮತು� ;ಬ_ಂ9ಯವ7Jೆ ಬಂ"ೋಬ;� ಕತ-ವ��ೆa �ೇHಸfಾeತು�. ಅದರಂDೆ %�ೆSಯ 9ವಸ 20.00 ಗಂdೆJೆ ಮುWೋಳ ನಗರದ ಜನDಾ Rಾ@ಟದ�@ ಇರುವ Cಂದೂ ಮFಾಗಣಪG ಜನDಾ �ಾಜ ಗ�ೇಶ 'ಸಜ-�ೆ �ಾಯ-ಕPಮ�ೆa 'ಜಯಪ�ರ ನಗರ Uಾಸಕ�ಾದ ಬಸನJೌಡ RಾLೕಲ ಯDಾSಳ ರವರು ಮುWೋಳ ನಗರದ ಜನDಾ Rಾ@• �ಾP�Jೆ ಬಂದು ಗ�ೇಶ ಮೂG-Jೆ �ಾfಾಪ-�ೆ �ಾh ನಂತರ ^ರವyJೆಯ�@ (ಾಗವC;ದEರು. ನಂತರ 20.20 ಗಂdೆJೆ ಮುWೋಳ ನಗರದ O=ಾ! ಸಕ-ಲದ�@ �ಾವ-ಜ%ಕ=ಾe ಬಸನJೌಡ RಾLೕಲ (ಯDಾSಳ) ರವರು ಈ �ೆಳeನಂDೆ �ಾತ�ಾhದುE ಇರುತ�"ೆ

¶160

�ಾವ� (ಾರತದ�@"ೆE=ೆbೕ Rಾ4�ಾ�ನದ�@"ೆE=ೆbೕ? ಎಂಬ Jೊಂದ�@"ೆEೕ=ೆ . �ಾವ� ಮುWೋಳ ಅಥ=ಾ fಾFೋರದ�@"ೆEೕ=ೆŽೕ? ಎಂಬುದನುS J¸ï ¥ÀE CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÉÃ¼À¨ÉÃQzÉ. £Á£ÀÄ JAJ¯ïJ ಇ"ಾEಗ 'ಜಯಪ�ರದ ಎ�.� ನನS ಬJೆq ಸುಳl} ಆ�ೋಪ �ಾhದE. ಆಗ �ಾನು ಅವ%Jೆ %ನJೆ ಏ�ಾದೂP DಾಕG�ದE�ೆ &ಾ4 •ƒಟುu �ಾಜ4ೕಯ�ೆa 0ಾ ಎಂದು DºÁé£À ¤ÃrzÉ. ªÀÄÄAzÉ CªÀgÀ ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀjAzÀ gÁf ¸ÀAzsÁ£À ªÀiÁr¹zÀ. PÁAUÉæ¸ï ¸ÀPÁðgÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À£ÀÄß 0ೇ�ಾ Lu ಬಳ�ೆ �ಾh�ೊಂಡು �ಾZಾ ;ಂ• ಅವರನುS ಮೂರು Gಂಗಳl %tೇŒ;"ಾE�ೆ . ಅವರು ಒಬ_ ಎಂ.ಎ2.ಎ ಅದರ ಅ7'ಲ@"ೇ ಎ�� ರವ�ೆ �ಾಜ;ಂ• ಬರುವದನುS ತBೆದು %tೇŒ; �ಾಜ�ಾರಣ �ಾಡುG�"ಾE�ೆ . %ೕ=ೇನು �ಾಜ4ೕಯ �ಾಡಲು ಕುiG9Eೕ�ಾ.

¶161

18 -

¶162

NC: 2026:KHC:30519 CRL.P No. 12806 of 2024

¶163

HC-KAR

¶164

ಲXಾಂತರ CಂದೂಗಳನುS �ೊfೆ �ಾh Lಪ�g ಒಬ_ ಹ�ಾಮ�ೋರ ಸೂ>ೆಮಗ, ಔರಂಗZೇˆ ಒಬ_ ಹ�ಾಮ�ೋರ ಸೂ>ೆಮಗ Cಂದೂ '�ೋŒ. ಈ ಬJೆq �ಾತ�ಾhದ�ೆ ನನS ^ೕfೆ �ೇ� FಾಕುG�ೕ7, �ಾನು ಅದ�ೆa Fೆದರುವ�9ಲ@ ಅಂತಹ %tೇಧ ಕPಮವನುS �ಾನು ಖಂhಸುDೆ�ೕ�ೆ . �ಾವ� Cಂದೂಗಳl �ೆಂಡರfಾ@. ನಮ] ಮಂ9 ಅ4aJೆ , Jಾ�;Jೆ 0ೆನS ಹG�"ಾE�ೆ . ಮತ"ಾರರು ಅ4a Jಾ��ನಂತಹ Jಾ�ರಂL bೕಜ�ೆJೆ 0ೆನSಹG� ಮತವನುS ಅವ7Jೆ Fಾಕುವ�ದ7ಂದ ನಮJೆ Dೊಂದ�ೆಯುಂdಾಗುತ�"ೆ . ಮುಂ9ನ 9ನದ�@ Cಂದೂಪರ ಜನಪPG%ŒಗiJೆ ಮತ %ೕಡ0ೇಕು. ಗ�ೇಶ ಉತ+ವದ�@ hZೆ ಹಚƒ0ಾರದು ಎಂದು ಅŒ�ಾ7ಗಳl ಆ"ೇಶ �ಾಡುDಾ � ೆ . �ಾ=ೇನು Rಾ4�ಾ�ನದ�@"ೆEೕ=ೆŽೕ? ಎಂಬುದು ನಮJೆ Jೊಂದಲವ�ಂdಾಗುG�"ೆ . ಮುಂ9ನ ಮುಖ�ಮಂGP �ಾ�ೇ ಆಗುDೆ�ೕ�ೆ . ಆಗ ಇ"ೇ ಎ�.� ರವರನುS �ಾZಾ;ಂ•ರನುS ಕ�ೆತರಲು Fೈದ�ಾ0ಾ{ Jೆ ಕಳlC; ಅವ7Jೆ ರ•�ೆ %ೕಡಲು �ೇಮಕ �ಾಡುDೆ�ೕ�ೆ .

¶165

ಜHೕರ ಅಹ]ದರವ�ೆ JಾಂŒ, �ೆಹರು ರವರು CಂದೂಗiJೆ �ಾhದ ಅ�ಾಹುತ ಅಂದ�ೆ Rಾ4�ಾ�ನ 0ೇ�ೆ "ೇಶ ಅಂDಾ ಬ�ೆದು�ೊLuದುE Fಾಗೂ "ೇಶದ�@ 13 ಲ• ಎಕ�ೆ ವˆಬ ಆ;� �ಾhದುE, ನಮ] �ಾಜ�ದ�@ 1 ಲ• 11 �ಾ'ರ ಎಕ�ೆ ಜHೕನು ಇರುತ�"ೆ . ಮುಂ9ನ 9ನಗಳ�@ ಈ �ಾನೂನು DೆJೆದುFಾ4 ದ�ತರು ಮತು� Cಂದುiದ ವಗ-ದವ7Jೆ 50 �ಾ'ರ ಏಕ�ೆ ಭೂH ಹಂಚುDೆ�ೕ�ೆ . ;ದE�ಾಮಯ�Jೆ ಧಮ] ಇ"ೆP. %ೕವ� ದ�ತ7Jೆ ಮತು� Cಂದುiದ ವಗ-ದವ7Jೆ ಭೂH ಹಂಚುG � ಾ, ;ದE�ಾಮಯ� ನವ7 ನವ7Jೆ Cಂದೂಗಳ ಗಳ ಮತ� 0ೇ�ಾeಲ@. JಾಂŒ ಮತು� �ೆಹರು �ಾhದ ಎಡವLu%ಂದ Rಾ4�ಾ�ನ ಟುu�ೊಟುu ವಬ_ %H-; ಅವ7Jೆ ಲXಾಂತರ ಎಕ�ೆ ಆ;� ಟುu�ೊಟuರು. �ಾನು ;.ಎಂ ಮತು� �ೇಂದPದ�@ ನ�ೇಂದP /ೕ9 �.ಎಂ ಆ"ೆP ಮತು� 400 �ಾ�ನಗಳl ಬಂದ�@ ವಬ_ �ಾŽEಯನುS 4ತು� FಾಕುDೆ�ೕ=ೆ . O=ಾ! ಮFಾ�ಾಜರು ಇರ9ದE�ೆ "ಅಗರ O=ಾ!-�ಾ FೊDಾ�Dೊ �ಾ; �ಾ0ಾ ಮದು�ಾ ಮ;ೕ9" ಅಂDಾ ಆಗುG�ತು�, ನನS Fೆಸರು ಬಸನJೌಡ ಇದEದುE ಬ;ೕರ�ಾಬ ಆeರGತು�. ಇನೂS ಬ"ಾ�ಸ�ಾಬ ಹಲ@ಟ�ಾಬ ಇರುG�ದEವ�. ಆದ�ೆ O=ಾ! �ಾಜ7ಂದ ಇವ� ಏನು ಆಗ�ಲ@, ಮು;@ಮರು ಸ�ಾಜ '�ೋŒಗಳl. (ಾರತದ�@ ಶ7sಾ �ಾನೂನು Zಾ7Jೊiಸಲು ನಮ] ಸಂ'WಾನವನುS '�ೋŒಸುDಾ � ೆ . (ಾರತದ�@ Cಂದೂಗಳ ಸ�ಾ-ರವನ ಒ�g�ೊಳl}ವ�9ಲ@ ಎಂದು ಅಂ0ೇಡa• ಅವರು ತಮ] ಸಂ'Wಾನದ�@ ಉfೆ@ೕ‘;"ಾE�ೆ .

¶166

ಒಬ_ H%ಸu• ನನJೆ �ಾ[Jೆ Fೋ��ೆ �ಾಡುDಾ � ೆ . �ಾನೂ ಒಬ_ ಸ�ಾತನ Cಂದೂ ಧಮ-ದ %ಯG� �ಾ[, �ಾನು (ಾರತದ �ಾ[, �ಾನು (ಾರತ

¶167

19 -

¶168

NC: 2026:KHC:30519 CRL.P No. 12806 of 2024

¶169

HC-KAR

¶170

ಸಂ'Wಾನದ �ಾ[, �ಾನು ನ�ೇಂದP /ೕ9ಯ �ಾ[, �ಾನ sಾವ ಮಕaಳ ZೊDೆ ಅಡ$ಸu^ಂ• ಇರfಾರ"ೇ Zೆ� �ಾ[, %ೕವ� ಹಂ9 ZೊDೆ ಕೂh ಹ�ಾH Fೇಲ GಂG 0ಾ0ಾ �ಾFೇಬರನುS �ೋ�; ಅವ7Jೆ ಅವ�ಾನ �ಾhದುE �ಾಂJೆP� ನವರು.

¶171

sಾದe7ಯ�@ ದ�ತ �ಎ�ಐJೆ ಅ�@ನ ಎಂಎ2ಎ 12 ಲ• ರೂ ಲಂಚ�ೆa 0ೇh�ೆ ಇLuದEರು. ಮುಂ"ೆ 1 ಲ• FೇiದE�ೆa ಆ ಮನುಷ�%Jೆ %Jೆ ಟುu 0ೇ�ೆ sಾವ�"ೋ �.ಎ�.ಐ 18 ಲ• �ೊಟುu ಅವ%Jೆ DೊJೊಂಡ ಬಂ9P, ಆ ಇದ7ಂದ �ಾನ;ಕ ‘ನSDೆJೊಳJಾe �ಎ�ಐ ಆತ]ಹDೆ� �ಾh�ೊಂಡರು. ಈಗ �ಾ �ೇಳG%, ದ�ತ ಮುಖಂಡ ಎ�@"ಾE�ೆ ? ಒಬ_ h.ಎ�.� /�ೆS ನನJೆ Fೇiದ ನನJೆ 50 ಲ• ರೂ �ೊdೆu, 6 GಂಗiJೆ ಎ _; ಟುP ಅಂತ Fೇiದರು. �ಾನು ಅವ%Jೆ ಅಂ"ೆ 50 ಲ•ಕೂa ’ಾರ 6 ಮಂತJೆ ಆನಂದಕು�ಾರ ಅಂDಾ ಎ�.� ಇದ 'ಜಯಪYರ�ೆa, 0ಾಗಲ�ೋdೆ ಎ�.� %ೕವ� �ೕK �ಾh �ೇi, %ಮಗ ಈ "ೇಶದ ಜ�ಾ dಾ�ಕ+9ಂದ %ಮ ಪJಾರ �ೊಡDಾರ. G�ಾ]ಪYರ ರವರ ಮ�ೆ[ಂದ ಅಲ@. ವJಾ-ವ�ೆJಾe ��ೕ� 7Jೆ ®AZÀ 0ೇh�ೆ[ಡುG�"ಾE�ೆ ಇದು ಸ7ಯಲ@. ಅŒ�ಾರ Uಾಶ<ತವಲ@, ಆರು Gಂಗಳ�@ %ಮ] ಸ�ಾ-ರ=ೇ ಇರುವ�9ಲ@.

¶172

Fೈ �ೋಟ-9ಂದ ಮೂರು Gಂಗ>ೆ“ಳJೆ ಅನುಮG ಪBೆದು�ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು 0ಾಗಲ�ೋdೆಯ ಎ Dಾಲೂ4ನ�@ �ಾZಾ;ಂ•ರನುS ಕ�ೆ[; ಎಲ@ ಕBೆJೆ Cಂದೂಪರ (ಾಷಣ �ಾಡುDೆ�ೕ=ೆ . Lಪ�gಸುfಾ�K ಮ ಔರಂಗZೇˆJೆ 0ೈಯು�Dೆ�ೕ=ೆ . ಅŒ�ಾ7ಗiJೆ 0ೇ�ೆ 7ೕGಯ�@Žೕ Rಾಠ ಕ�ಸುDೆ�ೕ�ೆ . ಆ 0ೇವ;- ನನS ಮಗ ಓ=ೈ; ಹ�ಾಮ�ೋರ ಇಲಕಲ@ Fಾಗೂ ಜಮಖಂhJೆ ಬಂ"ೆP ��ೕಸರು ಏನು �ಾಡ�ಲ@. ಇ9ೕಗ �ಾZಾ;ಂಗರ ¤§AðzsÀ 'Œ;ರುವ %ಮJೆ Fೈ�ೋಟ-%ಂದ ತಕa Rಾಠ ಕ�; 0ಾಗಲ�ೋdೆ ತುಂಬ (ಾಷಣ �ಾಡುDೆ�ೕ �ಾಗಮಂಗಲದ�@ RೆdೊPೕ2 0ಾಂˆ ಮತು� ಕಲು@ ತೂ�ಾಟ �ಾBಾ�ರ, ಒಬ_ ಎ�.� ಗ�ೇಶ ಮೂG-ಯ ��ೕ� =ಾಹನದ�@ �ೊಂBೊಯುDಾ � ೆ , %ಮJೆ �ಾ•�ೆsಾಗ0ೇಕು. "ೇಶದ ಅನS Gಂದು ನಮ] �ಾನೂ Jೌರ'ಸುವ ಪPGbಂದು ಮು;@ಂನನುS �ಾನು Jೌರ'ಸುDೆ�ೕ�ೆ . ಮ�ೆJೆ "ೊPೕಹ ಬJೆಯುವ ಮು;@ಂ7Jೆ ತಕa ಕ�ಸುDೆ�ೕ=ೆ . Rಾ�fೆ�ೈK ಧkಜ Ch"ೆP ಏನು ತRಾg[ತು ಅಂDಾ FೇಳDಾನ ಜHೕರಅಷ�ದ �ಾವ� ಇ�ೆPೕ2 ಧkಜ C Fಾ�ಂಗ ಆಗುತ�"ೆ . !fಾ@Œ�ಾ7 Zಾನ4�ಾಮ ಅಂDಾ Fೆಸರು ಇದುE, �ಾಡುವ�"ೆಲ@ Cಂದೂ '�ೋŒ, ಮುWೋಳದ ಏನ �ಾZಾ;ಂ•Jೆ ಅಪ�ಾನ �ಾh9E7. ಇದನುS �ಾವ� ಡುವ9ಲ@ �ೇಡು Gೕ7;�ೊಳl}Dೆ�ೕ=ೆ . �ಾನು ;ಎಂ ಆ ಒಂ"ೆ ಒಂದು ರೂ ಲಂಚ ಪBೆಯ"ೇ ಎಲ@ ��ೕ� ಹು"ೆEಗಳನುS ಭG- �ಾಡುDೆ�ೕ�ೆ . "ೇಶದ ಭದPDೆJಾe

¶173

20 -

¶174

NC: 2026:KHC:30519 CRL.P No. 12806 of 2024

¶175

HC-KAR

¶176

��ೕ ಇfಾ&ೆಯನುS ಭದPDೆJೊiಸಲು ಒತು� %ೕಡ0ೇಕು. ಇ"ೇ 7ೕG Cಂದೂಗಳl %�-ಪ�=ಾeದE�ೆ ಮುಂ9ನ 9ನಃ Cಂದೂಗಳl !ೕವನ ನBೆಸುವ�ದು ಕ•ಣ=ಾಗುತ�"ೆ .

¶177

ಅಪg ಮಕaಳl ದುಡು$ ��ా�� ಮುಖ�ಮಂGPsಾಗಲು ಹವy;ದ�ೆ ಜನಬಲ9ಂದ ಮುಖ�ಮಂGPsಾಗುವ�ದು %Oƒತ. "ೇಶ�ೆa JಾಂŒ ಒಬ_7ಂದfೇ �ಾ<ತಂತP– ;4aಲ@, FೊರDಾe �ೇDಾ! ಸು(ಾ ಚಂದP 0ೋ� ಅವರ ಭಯ9ಂದ "ೇಶ�ೆa �ಾ<ತಂತP– "ೊ�ೆ4"ೆ ಎಂದು 0ಾ0ಾ �ಾFೇˆ ಅಂ0ೇಡa• ರವ Fೇi"ಾE�ೆ . Rಾ4�ಾ�ನದ�@ ಪP=ಾಹ ಉಂdಾದ�ೆ 10 �ೋL ರೂ. ಪ7Fಾರ %Œ �ೊಡುDಾ **�** ೆ . ಅHೕ• ಖ ನಂತವರು. "ೇಶದ�@ ಅತಂತP ಭಯ �ಾಡುG�"ೆ ಎಂಬ Fೇi�ೆ %ೕಡುDಾ **�** ೆ . Rಾ4�ಾ�ನ ಮತು� (ಾರತ 'ಭ! ಪ�ಸ�ಕ'"ೆ . ಆ ಪ�ಸ�ಕವನುS ಎ�.� ರವ�ೇ �ಾGP ತ7;�ೊಂಡು ಓ9P, ಈ ಪ�ಸ�ಕ /ೕ9 ಬ�ೆ9ಲ@. ! .ಆ•.ಅಂ0ೇಡaರ ರವರು ಬ�ೆ9ರುDಾ **�** ೆ . ಇದ7ಂದ (ಾರತದ�@ ಶ7sಾ �ಾನೂನು ತಂದು, �ಾ ಬ ಸಂ'WಾನವನುS DೆJೆದು ಡುDಾ **�** ೆ ಅಂDಾ ಅಂ0ೇಡaರ ರವ7Jೆ 'ಭಜ�ೆ[ಂ"ಾಗುವ ಪ7�ಾಮಗಳ ಬJೆq ಆಗ JೊG�ತು�. �ಾZಾ ;ಂ• ಅವರನುS %tೇŒ;ದE�ೆa ನನJೆ ಬಹಳ �ೋ=ಾe"ೆ . ಓ=ೈ;ಯನುS ಟುu �ಾZಾ;ಂ• ರ %tೇŒಸುG�ೕ7. ನನJೆ (ಾಷಣ �ಾh ಎಂದು ಸಲFೆ %ೕಡುG�ೕ7. �ಾನು ಜನಪPG%Œ ಇ"ೆEೕ�ೆ . ನನJೆ Fೇ>ೆ“ೕ ಅŒ�ಾರ %ಮeಲ@, �ೇವಲ ರ•�ೆ %ೕಡುವ �ೆಲಸ �ಾh ��ೕಸ�ೆ . /ೕ9 ಆಡiತದ�@ �ೈ%ಕ7Jೆ Fೆ•ƒನ �ಾ<ತ %ೕhದ ಪ7�ಾಮ "ೇಶದ ಭದPDೆ Fೆ‚ಾƒe"ೆ ಎ�ೆಡೂರು ವಷ-ಗಳ�@ �ಾವ� ಅŒ�ಾರ�ೆa ಬರುDೆ�ೕ=ೆ . ಆಗ Cಂದೂ ಅŒ�ಾ7ಗiJೆ Fೆ•ƒನ �ೌಲಭ� %ೕಡುDೆ�ೕ=ೆ . 0ಾಂJಾ@ �ಾದ7ಯ�@ ನಮ] �ಎಂ ರವರ ಮ�ೆJೆ Fೋe�' ಅಂತ %ಮ] ಅಪgJೆ ಹುLu"ೆP ನಮ] ಇಂhಯK H2— ಮತು� ��ೕಸಳನುS ಸ7; Fೋe7 �ೋBೋಣ. ಮುಂ ಮುಖ�ಮಂGPsಾಗುವ ವ�4�bಬ_ನ ಬJೆq ಬJೆq ; ಐ ಸ�ಳ Fಾಗೂ fೋ�ಾಯುಕ�ದ�@ �ೇ� Fಾ4"ೆEೕ�ೆ . ಅದನುS ಎದು7P ¸ÀÄ¦æFA PÉÆÃmïð£À°è 17 ªÀQÃ®gÀ£ÀÄß §ÄPï ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÁÝgÉ ªÀRá PÀAiÉÄÝ GದುEಪh �ಾಡDಾ ಇ9E', Cಂದ ಧಮ-ದ ಎರಡು ಎಂ� ಇರುDಾ � ೆ ಅಂDಾ �ಾತ�ಾh 21:30 ಗಂdೆವ�ೆJೆ (ಾಷಣ �ಾh ಮುe;ರುDಾ � ೆ . ಆ �ಾಲ�ೆa 6000-7000 ಜನರು �ೇ7ದEರು. ಮತು� ��ೕ� ಇfಾ&ೆಯ ಅŒ�ಾ7 Fಾಗೂ ;ಬ_ಂ9ಯವರು ಬಂ"ೋ ಬ;� ಕತ-ವ�ದ�@ ಇದEರು.

¶178

ಈ (ಾಷಣದ �ಾ�ಾಂಶವನುS �ೋಡfಾe ಇದರ�@ 'ಜಯಪ�ರ ನಗರ Uಾಸಕ�ಾದ ಬಸನJೌಡ RಾLೕಲ ಯDಾSಳ ರವರು Dಾವ� ಒಬ_ ಜನಪPG%Œ ಇದEರೂ ಸಹ ಅನ� ಮGೕಯ ಅಥ=ಾ ಗುಂ�ನ ಜನರನುS 0ೈ"ಾhದ�ೆ �ಾ�ಾ!ಕ

¶179

21 -

¶180

NC: 2026:KHC:30519 CRL.P No. 12806 of 2024

¶181

HC-KAR

¶182

�ಾಮರಸ��ೆa ದ�ೆaಯುಂdಾಗುತ�"ೆ ಅಂDಾ JೊG�ದEರೂ ಸಹ Lಪ�g ಒಬ_ ಹ�ಾಮ�ೋರ �ೊ>ೆಮಗ, ಔರಂಗZೇˆ ಒಬ_ ಹ�ಾಮ�ೋರ ಸೂ>ೆ ಮಗ, ಅವರು Cಂದೂ '�ೋŒಗಳl ಅಂDಾ 0ೈ"ಾh ಅವರು ''ಧ ಮGೕಯ ಜನರ ಮಧ� "ೆ<ೕಷವನುSಂಟು �ಾಡುವ ಉ"ೆEೕಶ9ಂದ Fಾಗೂ ''ಧ ವಗ-ಗಳ ನಡು=ೆ "ೆ<ೕಷ =ೈಮಸು+ ಉಂಟು �ಾಡುವ ಮತು� =ೈಮನಸ+ದ (ಾವ�ೆಗಳನುS 0ೆ>ೆಸುವ ಉ"ೆEೕಶ9ಂದ Fಾಗೂ ತಮ] (ಾಷಣ9ಂದ ''ಧ �ೋಮು, ZಾGಯ ಸಮು"ಾಯಗಳ ನಡು=ೆ ಅ�ೌFಾಧ-Dೆ ಅಥ=ಾ "ೆ<ೕಷ (ಾವ�ೆಯನುSಂಟು �ಾಡಲು ಉDೆ�ೕ!ಸುವ ಮGೕಯ "ೆ<ೕಷದ (ಾಷಣ �ಾhದುE ಈ ಬJೆq ಸದ7ಯವರ ^ೕfೆ ನನSದು ಸ.ತ ‰sಾ-9 ಇದುE ‰sಾ-9 ಇದುE. ಮುಂ9ನ �ಾನೂನು 7ೕG ಕPಮ �ೈ�ೊಳ}ಲು 'ನಂG ಅ"ೆ . ಈ ಬJೆq �ಾನು ^ೕfಾŒ�ಾ7ಗiJೆ '‚ಾ7; ‰sಾ-9 �ೊಡಲು ತಡ=ಾeರುತ�"ೆ ."

¶183

8. The offence alleged against the petitioner apart

¶184

from Section 505(2) of the IPC is the one punishable under Section 153A. Interpretation of Section 153A to become an offence or the presence of ingredients to become an offence need not detain this Court for longer or delve deep into the matter.

¶185

The Apex Court in the case of JAVED AHMAD

¶186

HAJAM v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA¹ interpreting Section 153A of the IPC has held as follows:

¶187

“…..

¶188

10. Now, coming back to Section 153-A, clause ( a ) of sub-section (1) of Section 153-AIPC is attracted when by words, either spoken or

¶189

1 (2024) 4 SCC 156

¶190

22 -

¶191

NC: 2026:KHC:30519 CRL.P No. 12806 of 2024

¶192

HC-KAR

¶193

written or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, an attempt is made to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities. The promotion of disharmony, enmity, hatred or ill will must be on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste, community or any other analogous grounds. Clause ( b ) of subsection (1) of Section 153-AIPC will apply only when an act is committed 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 .

¶194

11. Now, coming to the words used by the appellant on his WhatsApp status, we may note here that the first statement is that August 5 is a Black Day for Jammu and Kashmir. 5-8-2019 is the day on which Article 370 of the Constitution of India was abrogated, and two separate Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir were formed. Further, the appellant has posted that “Article 370 was abrogated, we are not happy”. On a plain reading, the appellant intended to criticise the action of the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India. He has expressed unhappiness over the said act of abrogation. The aforesaid words do not refer to any religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community. It is a simple protest by the appellant against the decision to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution of India and the further steps taken based on that decision. The Constitution of India, under Article 19(1)( a ), guarantees freedom of speech and expression. Under the said guarantee, every citizen has the right to offer criticism of the action of abrogation of Article 370 or, for that matter, every decision of the State. He has the right to say he is unhappy with any decision of the State.

¶195

12. In Manzar Sayeed Khan [ Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra , (2007) 5 SCC 1 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 417] , this Court has read “intention” as an essential ingredient of the said offence. The alleged objectionable words or expressions used by the

¶196

23 -

¶197

NC: 2026:KHC:30519 CRL.P No. 12806 of 2024

¶198

HC-KAR

¶199

appellant, on its plain reading, cannot promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities. The WhatsApp status of the appellant has a photograph of two barbed wires, below which it is mentioned that “AUGUST 5 — BLACK DAY — JAMMU&KASHMIR”. This is an expression of his individual view and his reaction to the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India. It does not reflect any intention to do something which is prohibited under Section 153-A. At best, it is a protest, which is a part of his freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)( a ).

¶200

13. Every citizen of India has a right to be critical of the action of abrogation of Article 370 and the change of status of Jammu and Kashmir. Describing the day the abrogation happened as a “Black Day” is an expression of protest and anguish. If every criticism or protest of the actions of the State is to be held as an offence under Section 153-A, democracy, which is an essential feature of the Constitution of India, will not survive.

¶201

14. The right to dissent in a legitimate and lawful manner is an integral part of the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)( a ). Every individual must respect the right of others to dissent. An opportunity to peacefully protest against the decisions of the Government is an essential part of democracy. The right to dissent in a lawful manner must be treated as a part of the right to lead a dignified and meaningful life guaranteed by Article 21. But the protest or dissent must be within four corners of the modes permissible in a democratic set up. It is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed in accordance with clause (2) of Article 19. In the present case, the appellant has not at all crossed the line .

¶202

15. The High Court has held [ Javed Ahmed Hajam v. State of Maharashtra , 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 819] that the possibility of stirring up the emotions of a group of people cannot be ruled out. The appellant's

¶203

24 -

¶204

NC: 2026:KHC:30519 CRL.P No. 12806 of 2024

¶205

HC-KAR

¶206

college teachers, students, and parents were allegedly members of the WhatsApp group. As held by Vivian Bose, J., the effect of the words used by the appellant on his WhatsApp status will have to be judged from the standards of reasonable women and men. We cannot apply the standards of people with weak and vacillating minds. Our country has been a democratic republic for more than 75 years. The people of our country know the importance of democratic values. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude that the words will promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious groups. The test to be applied is not the effect of the words on some individuals with weak minds or who see a danger in every hostile point of view. The test is of the general impact of the utterances on reasonable people who are significant in numbers. Merely because a few individuals may develop hatred or ill will, it will not be sufficient to attract clause ( a ) of sub-section (1) of Section 153AIPC.

¶207

16. As regards the picture containing “Chand” and below that the words “14th August-Happy Independence Day Pakistan”, we are of the view that it will not attract clause ( a ) of sub-section (1) of Section 153-AIPC. Every citizen has the right to extend good wishes to the citizens of the other countries on their respective Independence Days. If a citizen of India extends good wishes to the citizens of Pakistan on 14th August, which is their Independence Day, there is nothing wrong with it. It is a gesture of goodwill. In such a case, it cannot be said that such acts will tend to create disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious groups. Motives cannot be attributed to the appellant only because he belongs to a particular religion.

¶208

17. Now, the time has come to enlighten and educate our police machinery on the concept of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)( a ) of the Constitution and the extent of reasonable restraint on their free speech and expression. They must be sensitised about the democratic values enshrined in our Constitution.

¶209

NC: 2026:KHC:30519 CRL.P No. 12806 of 2024

¶210

25 -

¶211

HC-KAR

¶212

18. For the same reasons, clause ( b ) of subsection (1) of Section 153-AIPC will not be attracted as what is depicted on the WhatsApp status of the appellant cannot be said to be prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony among various groups as stated therein. Thus, continuation of the prosecution of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 153-AIPC will be a gross abuse of the process of law.”

¶213

(Emphasis supplied)

¶214

10. In the light of the issue standing answered by the

¶215

judgment of the Apex Court as afore-quoted and that of this Court in the afore-extracted judgment, the petition deserves to succeed.

¶216

11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶217

ORDER

¶218