‘How Does Jai Shri Ram Outrage Religious Feelings?’: Karnataka HC Quashes Case Over Sloganeering In Mosque
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a case against two individuals accused of uttering "Jai Shri Ram" in a mosque, questioning how the slogan could offend religious sentiments.
The Karnataka High Court quashed a case against two men accused of committing an offence under Section 295A of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for allegedly shouting 'Jai Sriram' inside a mosque. The court questioned how the slogan would outrage the religious feelings of any community. The high court's decision came after it noted that the complainant in the case had acknowledged that Hindus and Muslims were living in harmony in the area concerned.
It further observed that as the essential elements of the alleged offences were not present, allowing the proceedings against the accused would amount to an abuse of legal process, Live Law reported. The two men had been booked under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including Sections 447 (Punishment for criminal trespass), 505 (Statements conducing to public mischief), 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation), 34 (Common intention), and 295A.
According to Live Law's report, a single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed, "Section 295A deals with deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. It is ununderstandable as to how if someone shouts 'Jai Sriram' it would outrage the religious feeling of any class. When the complainant himself states that Hindu-Muslims are living in harmony in the area the incident by no stretch of imagination can result in antimony."
Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Mahendra Singh Dhoni v Yerraguntla Shyamsundar (2017), the high court noted that not all acts fall under the ambit of Section 295A. It stressed that only those actions which impact peace or public order could be considered an offence under this section.
Regarding the allegations under Section 505, the court observed that there was no evidence that the incident had caused public mischief or created communal tensions. As for Section 506, it highlighted that the complainant had not witnessed any act of criminal intimidation, the report stated.
Complaint Over Shouting 'Jai Shri Ram' In Karnataka Mosque
The case stemmed from an incident on 24 September 2023, when unknown individuals allegedly entered the mosque around 10.50 p.m., shouting 'Jai Sriram' and issuing threats against the community. Although the initial complaint named unidentified individuals, the petitioners were later included as accused during the investigation. They approached the high court seeking quashing of the charges.
The petitioners argued that the allegations lacked the necessary elements to constitute an offence. They contended that Section 447, related to criminal trespass, did not apply as a mosque is a public place and entry into it should not be considered trespassing.
In response, the prosecution argued that the petitioners had no right to enter the mosque and shout the slogan or threaten the mosque's muthavalli (caretaker). It maintained that the matter warranted a thorough investigation, as per the report.
The high court remarked that the complainant's account stated that "Hindus and Muslims in the jurisdiction" of the police station were "living in great harmony," and alleged that the incident aimed to create discord. It further noted that the complaint did not detail any elements of offences under Sections 503 and 447.
Concluding that the allegations did not meet the criteria for any of the offences, the high court ruled, “The Apex Court holds that any and every act will not become an offence under Section 295A of the IPC. The acts that have no effect on bringing out peace or destruction of public order will not lead to an offence under Section 295A of the IPC. Finding no ingredients of any of the offences so alleged, permitting further proceedings against these petitioners would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice", Bar and Bench reported.
Consequently, the high court allowed the petitioners' plea and quashed the criminal proceedings pending before the trial court.
Top Headlines
