1 Reserved on : 12.12.2024 Pronounced on : 22.01.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2502 OF 2024 BETWEEN: ANANTKUMAR DATTATREYA HEGDE S/O DATTATREYA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, RESIDING AT NO. 17, KHB COLONY, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT – 581 402. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BHATKAL RURAL POLICE STATION, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HIGH COURT SPP, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . MANJUNATHA M. GONDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 2 PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HEBLE VILLAGE PANCHAYATH, RESIDING AT KUNTAWANI HADUGOLLI BHATKAL TALUK, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1; R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO 1) QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.0032/2024 REGISTERED BY THE BHATKAL RURAL POLICE STATION ON PENDING FILE OF THE COURT OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, BHATKAL, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 447, 153A, 149 OF IPC AND SEC. 3, 4, 5 OF KARNATAKA OPEN PLACE DISFIGUREMENT ACT, 1951 AND 1981 PRODUCED HEREWITH AS DOCUMENT NO.1; 2) ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF'S AS THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 12.12.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- 3 CAV ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.32 of 2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 149, 153A, 447 of the IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Open Place Disfigurement Act, 1951 & 1981 (‘the Act’ for short) and pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Bhatkal, Uttara Kannada District. 2. Heard Sri Pavana Chandra Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:- The petitioner is accused No.16 and respondent No.2 is the complainant/Panchayat Development Officer (‘PDO’). A complaint comes to be registered on 05-03-2024 alleging that the petitioner along with others on 04-03-2024 at 1.00 p.m. were wanting to CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA 4 hoist Bhagwan Hanuman Dhwaj and install a particular board of Veera Savarkar at Tenginagundi Beach, Bhatkal. Therefore, the 2nd respondent/PDO registers the complaint against 21 accused all said to be Hindu Karyakarthas for the afore-quoted offences. The registration of crime has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri Pavana Chandra Shetty would vehemently contend that hoisting of Bhagwan Hanuman Dhwaj or flag of Hanuman or even a picture of Veera Savarkar near a beach would not amount to an offence under Sections 447 and 153A of the IPC and even the offences under the Act. He would submit that identical issue is considered qua the same petitioner in Criminal Petition No.1561 of 2024 disposed on 7-11-2024. 5. Per contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the crime is registered as the acts of the petitioner have the propensity to 5 incite disharmony amongst two factions. Therefore, investigation must be permitted and accordingly, seeks dismissal of the petition. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. They lie in a narrow compass. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner qua the same petitioner, alleging same offences, this Court in the aforesaid petition has passed the following order: “…. …. …. 8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue lies in a narrow compass for which it is necessary to notice the complaint so registered. The complaint reads as follows: " ೆ, ಾಾ ಾಗಳ , ಕುಮಾ ೕ ಾೆ ಸ|| ತ|| ಾ : ೕ ಮಂಜು ಾಥ ೌಡರ, ೕ ಉಪ-'ೕ(ಕರು [ ಾ&ಸೂ] ಕುಮಾ ೕಸ ಾೆ ಆ+ೋ,ತರು : ೕ ಅನಂತಕು/ಾರ 0ೆಗ1ೆ. ಸಂಸದರು ೆನ+ಾ 3ೋಕಸ4ಾ 5ೇತ 6ಾಸ : ರ, ಉತ7ರ ಕನ8ಡ 93ೆ:. *********** 6 <ಾ+ಾಂಶ :- ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ತಮ@ ಬBೆ ಬ+ೆದು ೊಡುವ ದೂರು ಏ ೆಂದ+ೇ, ಈ ವಸ ಾಂಕ: 13-01-2024 ರಂದು 11-20 ಗಂೆ ಸು/ಾೆ ೕ ಅನಂತಕು/ಾರ 0ೆಗ1ೆ. ಸಂಸದರು ೆನ+ಾ 3ೋಕಸ4ಾ 5ೇತ ಇವರು ಅFೕGೆHಯ: '/ಾಣ6ಾಗುK7ರುವ ೕ+ಾಮ ಮಂರ ಉLಾMಟ ೆಯ ಪಯುಕ7 ಮಂOಾ(Oೆ 'ೕಡುವ ಸಲು6ಾP ಮತು7 ಅವರ ಪ6ಾಸ ಾಯ 'QತH ಕುಮಾದ ಪ6ಾಸ ಮಂರ ೆR SೇT 'ೕU ಅ: <ೇದV W.Xೆ.,. ಮುಖಂಡರ ಮತು7 ಾಯಕತರನು8 ಉLೆVೕZ /ಾತ ಾಡುK7ರು6ಾಗ ಅವರ Sಾಷಣವನು8 \UFೕ /ಾUದುV ಅದರ: ….. +ಾಮಜನ@ಭೂQ `ಾರಂಭ ಆPLೆ ಅದರ XೊOೆಯ: ಭಟRಳದ aನ8ದ ಪBbನೂ ಇLೆ ನಮೆನೂ ಮು3ಾc P3ಾc ಇ3ಾ: ಪK ೆಯವರು ೇರ6ಾP ಬ+ೊBb ಇದನ8 Oೆd ಅಂOಾ Sೇ ಾದೂ ಅಂLೊBb ೆಲವe ಮಂ, ಏನು OೊಂLೆ ಇ3ಾ:, /ಾ1ೊf ಾHರಂTgೕ. ಇದು hಂದೂ ಸ/ಾಜದ Kೕ/ಾನ, ಅನಂತ ಕು/ಾರ 0ೆಗ1ೆಯ Kೕ/ಾನ ಅ3ಾ:. ರZಯ \ಜಯ \ಠಲ Lೇವ<ಾjನ ಇತು7 Z, ಬXಾರದ: ಇತಕRಂತಹ ಮZೕ ಏ'Lೆ Lೊಡlದು ಅದು \ಜಯ \ಠಲ Lೇವ<ಾjನ. ೕರಂಗಪಟmಣದ: ಇರತಕRಂತಹ Lೊಡl ಮZೕಯಂತ ಕOಾರ3ಾ: ಅದು /ಾರುK Lೇವ<ಾjನ. ಇವತೂ7 0ೋದರು /ಾರುK ಮೂK ಾಣುOೆ7 <ೋ hೕೆ Lೇಶದ ಮೂ3ೆ ಮೂ3ೆಗಳ: ಹBbಯ ಮೂ3ೆ ಮೂ3ೆಗಳ: ಅಪ/ಾನ ೊಂUರತಕRಂತಹ ಅ ೇಕ ಸಂ ೇತಗBLಾV6ೆ. ಅದರ nತು7 0ಾ ೋತನಕ ಈ hಂದೂ ಸ/ಾಜ ಮOೆ7 6ಾ`ಾ ಕುOೊ7oೆpಲ:. ಈ ರಣ4ೈರವ ಎLಾVPLೆ. ಈಗ ಇನು8 ಮOೆ7 ಕುOೊRoೆp ಪsೆ8gೕ ಇ3ಾ: ಇದ ೆR <ೇಡು <ಾ\ರ ವಷಗಳ <ೇಡನು8 KೕZ ೊಳbLೇ ಇದV+ೆ ಇದು hಂದೂ ರಕ7 ಅ3ಾ: ಅ ೊ8 ಅಂತದVನು8 ಸtಷm6ಾP hಂದೂ ಸ/ಾಜ 0ೇಳ ತ7Lೆ. ಋಣ ಇಟುm ೊಂಡ ಸ/ಾಜ ಅ3ಾ: ಕvೕ ನಮುw ಋಣ ಇ1ೊRಂU+ೋ ಸ/ಾಜ ಅಲ:6ೇ ಅ3ಾ: ಋಣವನ8 Kೕ<ೇ KೕರZ7ೕ\. <ಾ\ರ ವಷಗಳ ಋಣ ಇLೇ ಕvೕ ನxy. ಅದನ8 KೕಸLೇ ಾವe ಸುx8 ಕುOೊRಂ1ೆ ಇದ ೆR hಂದೂ ರ ಾ7 ಅಂOಾ ಕ+ೆFೕ ೇ ಇಲ:. ಇದು ಶುರು6ಾPLೆ +ಾಮಜನ@ಭೂQ XೊOೆೆ zದಲ `ಾರಂಭ ಶುರು6ಾ{ತು. ಇUೕ hಂದೂ ಸ/ಾಜ ಎಷುm ಒ1ೆLಾV+ೆ, XಾK 0ೆಸನ: ಒ1ೆದರು, `ಾLೇಕOೆಯ 0ೆಸನ: ಒ1ೆದರು, 4ಾ}ೆಯ 0ೆಸನ: ಒ1ೆದರು, ಎಷುm ನಮ@ನ8 ಒ1ೆFೕ ಪಯOಾ8 ಏ ೆ3ಾ: /ಾUದರೂ ಇನು8 ನಮ@ ಾ8 ಒUOಾ ೆ ಇLಾV+ೆ ಮೂಖ+ಾಮಯHನಂತವರು. ಎಷುm ಒ1ೆದರು ಆದರೂ ಕೂ1ಾ hಂದೂ ಸ/ಾಜ ಇವತು7 ಒಗyಾmP 'ಂOೊRಂULೆ. ಎVLೇ ರಣ4ೈರವ ಾP 'ಂOೊRಂULೆ ಇದ ೆR 0ೊಸ ೆಲುವನ8 ಮುಂನ ಶತ/ಾನದ:ಯೂ ಾವe ಾೋ 0ಾೆ ಆಗSೇಕು ಅದ ೊRಸRರ ಅQ~ }ಾ 0ೇBದುV ಈ Sಾಯ ೆಲುವe 0ೇPರSೇಕಂತ ಮುಂನ ವಸದ: ಅದನ8 ಅBಸ ೆR ನಮ@ ಹತನೂ ಆಗSಾರದು. 0ೊ1ೆದ 0ೊ1ೆತ 0ೇPರSೇಕು ಅಂದ+ೆ ಪeನಜನ@ನೂ ZಗSಾರದು. ಈ ಜ ಾ@ ಅಂತೂ ೆoೆದು0ೊಗುOೆ7 ಮುಂನ 7 ಜನ@ದ:ಯೂ ಪeನಃ ಅವನು ಇವOೆ7ೕ <ಾಯSೇಕು. 0ೊ1ೆದ 0ೊ1ೆತ hೕPರSೇಕು. <ೋ ಈ 'Tmನ: ನಮ@ 0ೊ1ೆತ \+ೋ ಗBೆ ಆಗSೇಕು ಾಂೇ ನಮ@ \+ೋ ಅ3ಾ: ಾಂೇZೆ ನಮ@ನ8 \+ೋಧ /ಾ1ೋ ೆ`ಾHZT ೇ ಇ3ಾ:. ನಮ@ \+ೋ ಗಳ ನಮ@ ತ3ೆಯ: ಹುಚು‚ ಹುಳವನು8 WಡOಾರಲ: hಂದುತƒದ \+ೋ ಹುಳಗಳ , ಸ ಾತನದ \+ೋ ಹುಳಗಳ . ಇದ ೆ83ಾ: /ಾOಾ1ಾ7ರ3ಾ: ಅವರು ನಮ@ \+ೋ ಗಳ ಈ ಾಂೇ ನಮ@ \+ೋ ಅಲ:6ೇ ಅ3ಾ:. +ಾಜ ಾರಣ ೊRೕಸRರ ಅದು ಇದು ವದ+ಾಡ7 ಇರಕRಂತದುV. ನ„ಮ \+ೋ ZದV+ಾಮಯH, ಾಂೇ ಅ3ಾ:. ಾ ೆಂದ+ೆ ಆ ಗKೆಟm /ಾನZಕOೆ ಏ'Lೆ ಹ+ಾXಾP 0ೋPರತಕRಂತಹ ಅಲtಸಂ…ಾHತರ ಓTೆ ಹ+ಾXಾP 0ೋPರತಕRಂತಹ /ಾನZಕOೆ ಏ'Lೆ ಅದು ನಮ@ \+ೋಧ. +ಾಜnೕಯ \+ೋ ಅ3ಾ:. +ಾಜnೕಯ 1ೆ/ಾಕZಯ: ಒಂದು ಪ( ಬರುOೆ7 ಒಂದು ಪ( 0ೋಗುOೆ7 ಇದು <ಾƒ4ಾ\ಕ. ಾoೆ ಾ6ೇನು ಪಮ ೆಂT+ೊಲ:. ಮOೊ7ಂದು ಪ( ಬರುOೆ7. ಆದ+ೆ ಆ ಗKೆಟm /ಾನZಕOೆ ಏ'Lೆ ಅದು ನಮ@ \+ೋಧ. ಅದ ೆR ನಮ@ \+ೋಧ. ಅhಂದೂ /ಾನZಕOೆ ಅದು ನಮ@ \+ೋಧ, +ಾಮಜನ@ಭೂQ ಇ'ƒೇಷ‡ ಬಂದು +ಾಮ ಜನ@ಭೂQ ಇ'ƒೇಷ‡ ನxy ಬಂಲ:, ಆxೕ3ೆ ಬಂದು ಾ 0ೋಗುಲ: ಅಂದರು. 'ೕ ಬರ Wಡು +ಾಮಜನ@ಭೂQ ಏನು 'ಲು:ಲ: ಮಗ ೆ. ಇವತು7 0ೇoಾ7+ೆ 0ೋP7', ಅವತು7 0ೋಗುಲ: ಆxೕ3ೆ 0ೋP7' ಾನು. ಅಂದ+ೆ hಂದೂ ಸ/ಾಜದ Oಾಕತು7 ಕvೕ ಇದು. ೇವಲ ಎಂಟು ವಸಗಳ: ಧˆ' ಬದ3ಾಯು7. zದಲು ಇ'ƒೇಷ‡ ಬಂ3ಾ: ಅಂದರು ಆxೕ3ೆ ಇ'ƒೇಷ‡ ಬಂದರು ಾವe 0ೋಗಲ: ಅಂದರು ಇವತು7 0ೋP7', ಾನು 22 ೆR 0ೋಗುಲ: ಆxೕ3ೆ 0ೋP7' ಅಂOಾ ಅಂOಾ+ೆ. ಇದು hಂದೂ ಸ/ಾಜದ ಧ„. ಾವe Kೕ/ಾನ /ಾU+ೊ ಮುಹೂತ ಅ3ಾ: ಅದು ಭಗವಂತ Kೕ/ಾನ /ಾUದ ಮುಹೂತ, ಕುOೊRಂಡು ಪಂUತರು PÉ®ÄÌöå¯ÉÃmï /ಾUರತಕRಂತಹ ಪಂŠಾಂಗ ಅಲ:. sಾಪ 0ೇPರOೆ7 ಅಂOಾ ೋU, ತುಂSಾ ಮಂೆ ೊK73ಾ:. ಇಂ+ಾ ಾಂ ಪGಾನ ಮಂKಾPದು. ಆವK7ನ ವಸ ೋಹOೆH '}ೇಧದ ಬೆy ತುಂSಾ Lೊಡl ಆಂLೋಲನ ನUೕತು. ಆ ಆಂLೋಲನದ: ಸಂತರು ಕೂಡ ಸತು, <ಾ\+ಾರು ಸಂತರು 4ಾಗವhZದು, <ಾ\+ಾರು ಸಂ…ೆHಯ: ೋವeಗಳ ಕೂ1ಾ ಇದುV, ೋSಾ‹ ಆಯು7. ಹOಾ7ರು ಮಂ ಸಂತರು ಸತು. ಇಂ+ಾ ಾಂ ಪGಾನ ಮಂKಾPLಾVಗ ಅವರ ಸಮು@ಖದ:gೕ ಇದು ನUೕತು. ಹOಾ7ರು ಮಂ ಸಂತರು ಸತು, ನೂ+ಾರು ೋವeಗಳನು8 ಗುಂUಟುm ೊಂದು, ಆವK7ನ ನ ಕರ`ಾK ಮಹ+ಾಜ ಅಂOಾ ಒಬwರು ಇದು, ಾಯ: ಇರತಕRಂತವರು ಮ0ಾ ತಪZƒಗಳ , ಅವರನ8 ನ1ೆLಾಡುವ Lೇವರು ಅಂOಾ ಕOಾ+ೆ. Lೆಹಯ ನಮ@ ೆೆ ಆಾಗ ಅವರ ಷHರು ಬOಾ ಇOಾ+ೆ. ನ„ ಪeಣH ಅದು. ಕರ`ಾK ಮ0ಾ+ಾಜ ಅಂOಾ ಇದು, ಅವರು 0ೇBದು. ಬಹುOೇಕ 'ಮೆ3ಾ: hಂ ಅಥ ಆಗOೆ7 ಅಂOಾ ಾನು 4ಾ\ೕ'. ಅವರು 8 0ೇBದು "ಸಂOೋ ಾOೋ ಬೂ‡ ಬಹಾ, ಹ„ /ಾŒ ಕ‹ LೇOೆ 0ೈಂ, 3ೇn‡ 9 ೊ•ೕ ೆ ೋವಧnಾ, ೋಹOಾHn 0ೈ, /ಾŽ ನhಕ‹ ಸಕOೆ, ಭಗ6ಾ‡ • /ಾŒ ನhಕ‹ ಸಕOಾ" ಇಂ+ಾ ಾಂ ೆ sಾಪ ೊಟು ತು/ಾ•+ಾ ಕು• W ೋ`ಾಷmQ ೆ ‡ ಅಂ~ 0ೋಾ. ಏ‹ ಾ‘ ನ: ಸಂಜಯಾಂ ಸK7ದುV ೋ`ಾಷmQ, ಇಂ+ಾಾಂ ೆ ಗುಂUಟುm ೊಂದುV ೋ`ಾಷmQ, +ಾಹು• ಾಂ Sಾಂ’ ¨ÁèµïÖ ನ: ಸK7ದುV ೋ`ಾಷmQ, ಅ3ಾ:.. +ಾ9ೕವ ಾಂ , +ಾ9ೕವ ಾಂ Sಾಂ’ ¨ÁèµïÖ ನ: ಸK7ದುV ೋ`ಾಷmQ. ಮ0ಾಪeರುಷರ sಾಪ 0ೇPರOೆ7 ಅಂOಾ ೋU, ಅವರು 0ೇBದು ೋ`ಾಷmQ ೆ ‡ h ತು/ಾ•+ಾ ಕು• ಾ ಅಂOಾ 0ೋಾ CAvÉíý, ಇದು ಮ0ಾತ@ರ sಾಪ, ಭಗವಂತನ Kೕ/ಾನ, ಮ0ಾತ@ರ sಾಪ ಇದ ಾ8 Qೕ 'ಲ: ೆR <ಾಧH6ೇ ಇ•ಲ ಅಂತ Sಾಷಣ /ಾUರುOಾ7+ೆ. ಕುಮಾ Oಾಲೂಕ ಮತು7 ಉತ7ರ ಕನ8ಡ 93ೆ:ಾದHಂತ hಂದೂ 0ಾಗೂ ಮುZ:ಂ ಧಮದವರ ೋಮು <ೌ0ಾಧOೆೆ ಧ ೆR /ಾಡುವ ಮತು7 ಧಮ-ಧಮಗಳ ನಡು6ೆ ಮತು7 \\ಧ 'ಗುಂಪeಗಳ ನಡು6ೆ Lೆƒೕಷವನು8ಂಟು /ಾಡುವ <ೌ0ಾದOೆೆ Sಾಧಕ6ಾಗುವ ಉLೆVೕಶಂದ 0ಾಗೂ LೊಂW /ಾUಸುವ ಉLೆVೕಶಂದ ಮುZ:ಂ ಧಮದವರ \ರುದ“ hಂದೂ ಧಮದವೆ ಪŠೋದ ೆ /ಾU ೋಮು <ೌ0ಾಧOೆೆ ಧ ೆR ಆಗಲು ಜನರನು8 `ೇ+ೆ,ZರುOಾ7+ೆ. ಈ ಬೆy ೕ ಅನಂತಕು/ಾರ 0ೆಗ1ೆ. ಸಂಸದರು ೆನ+ಾ 3ೋಕಸ4ಾ 5ೇತ 6ಾಸ : ರ, ಉತ7ರ ಕನ8ಡ 93ೆ: ರವರ \ರುದ“ ಸರ ಾರದ ಪರ6ಾP ಕಲಂ : 153-153(ಎ)- 505(2) ಐ.,.Z ಪ ಾರ ನನ8 ದೂರು ಇರುತ7Lೆ. vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹ ¸À»/- ಮಂಜು ಾಥ ೌಡರ ,.ಎ.ಐ [ ಾ&ಸೂ] ಕುಮಾ ೕಸ ಾೆ F UÀtQÃPÀÈvÀ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ಾಂಕ 13-01-2024 gÀAzÀÄ 22.00 UÀAmÉUÉ - PÀĪÀÄmÁ ¥Éưøï oïuÉAiÀÄ°è ¹éÃPÀj¹PÉÆAqÀÄ oÁuÁ V°£Áß £ÀA§gï - 07/2024 PÀ®A. 153-153(J)-505(2) IPC £ÉÃzÀgÀAvÉ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR°¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. In the entire complaint, the allegation is that the petitioner has indulged in erection of temporary podium to hoist the Bhagwa Dhwaj and has spoken ill about other religion. The complaint appears to be grossly glorified for the offences. The crux of the allegation is erection of Bhagwa Dhwaj on the day of the installation of Shri Ram Lalla statue at Ayodhya. The 9 offences are the ones punishable under Sections 153, 153A and 505(2) of the IPC. They read as follows: "153. Wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot—if rioting be committed—if not committed.—Whoever malignantly, or wantonly, by doing anything which is illegal, gives provocation to any person intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause the offence of rioting to be committed, shall, if the offence of rioting be committed in consequence of such provocation, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both; and if the offence of rioting be not committed, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both. 153A. 153A. 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, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity, [or] (c) organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the 10 participants in such activity will use 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. (2) Offence committed in place of worship, etc.—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. … … … 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." Interpretation of this provision need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the case of JAVED AHMAD HAJAM V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA1 has held as follows: “…. …. …. 1 (2024) 4 SCC 156 11 Consideration of submissions 6. The only offence alleged against the appellant is the one punishable under Section 153-A IPC. Section 153-A IPC, as it exists with effect from 4-9-1969, reads thus: “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, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity, (c) organises any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use 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.” In this case, clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 153-AIPC is admittedly not attracted. 12 7. In Manzar Sayeed Khan [Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 5 SCC 1 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 417] , while interpreting Section 153-A, in para 16, this Court held thus : (SCC p. 9) “16. Section 153-AIPC, 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-AIPC 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.” (emphasis supplied) 8. This Court in Manzar Sayeed Khan [Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 5 SCC 1 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 417] referred to the view taken by Vivian Bose, J., as a Judge of the erstwhile Nagpur High Court in Bhagwati Charan Shukla v. Provincial Govt. [Bhagwati Charan Shukla v. Provincial Govt., 1946 SCC OnLine MP 5 : AIR 1947 Nag 1] A Division Bench of the High Court dealt with the offence of sedition under Section 124-AIPC and Section 4(1) of the Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931. The issue was whether a particular article in the press tends, directly or indirectly, to bring hatred or contempt to the Government established in law. This Court has approved this view in its decision in Ramesh v. Union of India [Ramesh v. Union of India, (1988) 1 SCC 668 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 266] . In the said case, this Court dealt with the issue of applicability of Section 153-AIPC. In para 13, it was held thus : (Ramesh case [Ramesh v. Union of India, (1988) 1 SCC 668 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 266] , SCC p. 676) “13. … 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 13 omnibus’. (Bhagwati Charan Shukla case [Bhagwati Charan Shukla v. Provincial Govt., 1946 SCC OnLine MP 5 : AIR 1947 Nag 1] , SCC OnLine MP para 67)” (emphasis supplied) Therefore, the yardstick laid down by Vivian Bose, J., will have to be applied while judging the effect of the words, spoken or written, in the context of Section 153-AIPC. 9. We may also make a useful reference to a decision of this Court in Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya [Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya, (2021) 15 SCC 35] . Paras 8 to 10 of the said decision read thus : (SCC pp. 41-43) “8. ‘It is of utmost importance to keep all speech free in order for the truth to emerge and have a civil society.’— Thomas Jefferson. Freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is a very valuable fundamental right. However, the right is not absolute. Reasonable restrictions can be placed on the right of free speech and expression in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of Court, defamation or incitement to an offence. Speech crime is punishable under Section 153-AIPC. Promotion of enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc. and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine or with both under Section 153-A. As we are called upon to decide whether a prima facie case is made out against the appellant for committing offences under Sections 153-A and 505(1)(c), it is relevant to reproduce the provisions which are as follows: *** 9. Only where the written or spoken words have the tendency of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order or affecting public tranquillity, the law needs to step in to prevent such an activity. The intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence under Section 153-AIPC and the prosecution has to prove the existence of mens rea in order to succeed. [Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995) 3 SCC 214 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 432] 10. The gist of the offence under Section 153-AIPC is the intention to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of people. The intention has to be judged primarily by the language of the piece of writing and the circumstances in which it 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 14 take a sentence here and a sentence there and connect them by a meticulous process of inferential reasoning [Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 5 SCC 1 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 417] .” (emphasis in original and supplied) 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 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 sub-section (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. 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. 12. In Manzar Sayeed Khan [Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 5 SCC 1 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 15 417] , this Court has read “intention” as an essential ingredient of the said offence. The alleged objectionable words or expressions used by the 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). 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. 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.” 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 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 16 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 153-AIPC. 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.” Later, the Apex Court in the case of SHIV PRASAD SEMWAL V. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND,2 has held as follows: “…. …. …. 21. It may be noted that the entire case as set out in the impugned FIR is based on the allegation that the Facebook news post uploaded by one journalist Mr Gunanand Jakhmola was caused to be published on Parvatjan news portal being operated by the appellant. 22. Thus, essentially, we are required to examine whether the contents of the news report constitute any cognizable offence so as to justify the investigation into the allegations made in the FIR against the appellant. 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 322 17 23. For the sake of ready reference, the contents of the disputed news article are reproduced hereinbelow: “Gunanand Jakhmola 17-3-2020 at 30.05 Trivender Uncle what amazing things you are doing? Uncle you are laying foundation stone of Art Gallery which is going to construct by acquiring government land. Uncle you are associating the mafias who are violating the decisions of Modi Government. Don't trap yourself with mafias, have you forgot the problems arisen out of marriage of Gupta brother's. Uncle you were not like this, what happened to you? Was the troubles arisen out of marriage of Gupta Brothers was not enough that you are now going to laying foundation stone of the Art Gallery which is going to construct by acquiring government land. Just think over it, or take report from LIU and other agencies about this Art Gallery which is going to construct on the acquired government land. This is a government land which is dismantled by mafias and your officers. Uncle you are innocent, anybody can use you. Advisers and officers surrounding you they are cunning. This cunning persons have brought you forward against the decisions of Modi Government. Uncle let I inform you for your knowledge that Modi Government means your honour has given sanction to planning for Singtali Project near Rishikesh. This project will reduce the distance between Kumau and Garhwal and also it will arrange sources of employment in mountains. World Bank is also giving money, but the program of Mafias in which you are going to participate on 20 March, that is an enemy of mountains. It has no concern with the well being of mountains. It is against the proposed project of Modi Government and your 18 officers and advisers are in collusion with that. Please inquire it and then only you go. Note : Kindly see the invitation card given by mafias.” 24. As per the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State, after investigation, two substantive offences were retained by the investigating officer against the appellant, which are Sections 153-A and 504 read with Sections 34 and 120-BIPC. 25. From a bare reading of the language of Section 153-AIPC, it is clear that in order to constitute such offence, the prosecution must come out with a case that the words “spoken” or “written” attributed to the accused, created enmity or bad blood between different groups on the ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc. or that the acts so alleged were prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony. 26. Upon careful perusal of the offending news article, reproduced (supra), it is crystal clear that there is no reference to any group or groups of people in the said article. The publication focuses totally on the complainant imputing that he had encroached upon public land where the foundation stone laying ceremony was proposed at the hands of Hon'ble Chief Minister of Uttarakhand. 27. Apparently, the post was aimed at frustrating the proposed foundation stone laying ceremony on the land, of which the complainant claims to be the true owner. The post also imputes that the person who was planning the foundation stone ceremony was an enemy of mountains and had no concern with the well-being of the mountains. 28. The learned Standing Counsel for the State tried to draw much water from these lines alleging that this portion of the post tends to create a sense of enmity and disharmony amongst people of hill community and the people of plains. However, the interpretation sought to be given to these words is far-fetched and unconvincing. The lines referred to supra only refer to the complainant, imputing that his activities are 19 prejudicial to the hills. These words have no connection whatsoever with a group or groups of people or communities. Hence, the foundational facts essential to constitute the offence under Section 153-AIPC are totally lacking from the allegations as set out in the FIR.” If the facts obtaining in the case at hand are considered on the touchstone of what is held by the Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgments, the unmistakable inference would be, obliteration of the crime against the petitioners. What is alleged against the petitioners is, distribution of turmeric laced sacred rice colloquially known as ‘akshathe’ and hoisting of Bhagawad dwaja. These two acts would not meet the ingredients of the offences so alleged against the petitioners, as elucidated by the Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgments. 9. Section 505 makes an offence against a person who makes a statement which results in inducing or conducting pubic mischief. There is no allegation that the incident alleged has caused public mischief or any rift. 10. Therefore, it is a glorified complaint without content. The Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL3, has held as follows: “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 3 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 20 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 non-cognizable 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 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. 21 (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)” (Emphasis added) The other offence that did not fall for consideration in the said case is the offence under Section 447 of the IPC and aforementioned provisions under the Act. Therefore, it becomes necessary to notice the complaint. The complaint reads as follows: “jUÉ, ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ ¨sÀl̼À UÁæ«ÄÃt ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ. EAzÀ, ²æà ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ JªÀiï UÉÆAqÀ ¥ÁæAiÀÄ-46 ªÀµÀð ªÀÈwÛ-¦.r.N ºÉ¨Éî UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ ªÁ¸À-PÀÄAlªÁt ºÁqÀĪÀ½î ¨sÀl̼À ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï £ÀA: 9008796729 ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ, «µÀAiÀÄ: D¥Á¢vÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR°¹ PÁ£ÀƤ£ÀAvÉ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀÄîªÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ. **** F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ£ÀågÀªÀgÀ°è «£ÀAw¹PÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ, £Á£ÀÄ PÀ¼ÉzÀ 12 dįÉÊ 2023 jAzÀ ºÉ¨Éî UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄwAiÀÄ°è ¦.r.N. DV PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 21/01/2024 gÀAzÀÄ vÉAV£ÀUÀÄAr §AzÀj£À°è ºÉ¨Éî ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄw ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉà C£À¢üÃPÀÈvÀªÁV zsÀédzÀ PÀmÉÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀnÖzÀÄÝ EzÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ: 27/01/2024 gÀAzÀÄ vÉgÀĪÀÅUÉƽ¸ÀĪÁUÀ gÀPÀëuÉ PÉÆÃj ¨sÀsÀl̼À UÁæ«ÄÃt ¥Éưøï oÁuÉUÉ Cfð ¤Ãr ¸À¢æ zsÀédzÀ PÀmÉÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉgÀĪÀÅUÉƽ¹zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 22 CzÀgÀ £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ: 30/01/2024 gÀAzÀÄ ¥ÀÄ£À: CzÉà eÁUÀzÀ°è 1)UÉÆëAzÀ dmÁÖ £ÁAiÀÄÌ, ¸Á|| ºÀ£ÀĪÀiÁ£À £ÀUÀgÀ, ¨sÀl̼À, 2) ²æÃPÁAvÀ £ÁgÁAiÀÄt £ÁAiÀÄÌ, ¸Á|| D¸ÀgÀPÉÃj, ¨sÀl̼À 3) gÁWÀªÉÃAzÀæ £ÁAiÀÄÌ, ¸Á|| ªÀÄÄlÖ½î, ¨sÀl̼À 4) ²æäªÁ¸À ªÀiÁ¸ÀÛ¥Àà £ÁAiÀÄÌ, ¸Á|| ºÀ£ÀĪÀiÁ£À £ÀUÀgÀ, ¨sÀl̼À 5) «eÉÃvÀ gÁzsÁPÀȵÀÚ ±ÉnÖ, ¸Á|| ºÉvÁðgÀ, ºÉ§¼É, ¨sÀl̼À 6) ¸ÀĨÁæAiÀÄ £ÁUÀ¥Àà zÉêÁrUÀ, ¸Á|| ¨Á¼É»vÀÄè, ºÉ§¼É, ¨sÀl̼À 7) vÀļÀ¹zÁ¸À ¸ÀĨÁâ £ÁAiÀÄÌ, ¸Á|| ¨É¼ÀPÉ, ¨sÀl̼À 8) UÀuÉñÀ ªÉÆUÉÃgÀ, ¸Á|| vÉAV£ÀUÀÄAr, ¨sÀl̼À 9) PÉñÀªÀ zÀÄUÀð¥Àà ªÉÆUÉÃgÀ, ¸Á|| vÉAV£ÀUÀÄAr, ¨sÀl̼À 10) ªÉAPÀmÉñÀ £ÁAiÀÄÌ, ¸Á|| ºÉ§¼É, ¨sÀl̼À 11) gÁªÀiÁ £ÁAiÀÄÌ, ¸Á|| ºÉ§¼É, ¨sÀl̼À 12) ¸ÀzÁ£ÀAzÀ ªÉÆUÉÃgÀ, ¸Á|| vÉAV£ÀUÀÄAr, ¨sÀl̼À 13) PÀÄ¥ÀàAiÀÄå UÉÆAqÀ, ¸Á|| vÉAV£ÀUÀÄAr, ¨sÀl̼À 14) zÀAiÀiÁ£ÀAzÀ £ÁAiÀÄÌ ¸Á|| vÉAV£ÀUÀÄAr, ¨sÀl̼À EªÀgÀÄ ºÉ¨Éî ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄw¬ÄAzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉà C£À¢üÃPÀÈvÀªÁV zsÀédzÀ PÀmÉÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 04/03/2024 gÀAzÀÄ 13-00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁjUÉ D¥Á¢vÀgÁzÀ 1) ¸ÀÄgÉñÀ £ÁAiÀÄÌ ¸Á|| gÀWÀÄ£ÁxÀ gÀ¸ÉÛ, ªÀÄÄtÄ̽ ¨sÀl̼À 2) C£ÀAvÀPÀĪÀiÁgÀ ºÉUÀqÉ. ¸ÀA¸ÀzÀgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀ PÀ£ÀßqÀ f¯Éè PÁgÀªÁgÀ. EªÀgÀÄ CPÀæªÀÄ UÀÄA¥À£ÀÄß PÀnÖPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ºÉ¨Éî ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ d«Ää£À°è C£À¢üÃPÀÈvÀ PÀmÉÖ PÀnÖgÀĪÀ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ ¸ÀÄvÀÛ ªÀÄÄvÀÛ°£À°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀ zsÀªÀÄð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄvÀ ««zsÀ UÀÄA¥ÀÄUÀ¼À £ÀqÀÄªÉ zÉéõÀªÀ£ÀÄß GvÉÛÃf¹ ¸ËºÁzsÀðvÉ PÀzÀr ¥ÀƪÀðUÀæºÀ ¦ÃrvÀ PÀÈvÀåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrzÀÝ®èzÉà EzÉà ªÉüÉAiÀÄ°è ¸À¢æ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è ºÉ¨Éî ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄw¬ÄAzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉà vÉAV£ÀUÀÄAr ©ÃZï JAzÀÄ PÀgÉAiÀÄ®ànÖgÀĪÀ eÁUÀPÉÌ ¸À¢æ C¥Á¢vÀgÀÄ DPÀæªÀĪÁV ¤«Äð¹zÀ C£À¢üÃPÀÈvÀ PÀmÉÖUÉ «ÃgÀ ¸ÁªÀgÀPÀgï JAzÀÄ £ÁªÀÄ¥sÀ®PÀ C¼ÀªÀr¹ zsÀéd¸ÀÜA¨sÀPÉÌ ¨sÀUÀªÁ zsÀéd C¼ÀªÀr¹ ¸ÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÄvÀÛ°£À ¥ÀæzÉñÀzÀ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀ ±ÁAw PÀzÀrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. C¥Á¢vÀgÁzÀ 1) ¢Ã¥ÀPÀ £ÁAiÀÄÌ ¸Á|| ºÀÄgÀ½¸Á® ¨sÀl̼À 2) ²æÃPÁAvÀ £ÁAiÀÄÌ ¸Á|| D¸ÀgÀPÉÃj ¨sÀl̼À 3) ¸ÀĨÁæAiÀÄ zÉêÁrUÀ ¸Á|| ¨Á¼É»vÀÄè ¨sÀl̼À 4) ¥ÁªÀðw J¸ï.£ÁAiÀÄÌ ¸Á|| vÉAV£ÀUÀÄAr ¨sÀl̼À 5) UÀuÉñÀ ªÉÆUÉÃgï ¸Á|| vÉAV£ÀUÀÄAr ¨sÀl̼À 6) PÉñÀªÀ ªÉÆUÉÃgï PÀQðªÀÄ£É ¸Á|| vÉAV£ÀUÀÄAr ¨sÀl̼À 7) zÀAiÀiÁ£ÀAzÀ £ÁAiÀÄÌ ¸Á|| vÉAV£ÀUÀÄAr ¨sÀl̼À 8) «eÉÃvÀ ±ÉÃnÖ ¸Á|| ºÉgÁÛgÀ ¨sÀl̼À 9) ªÉAPÀmÉñÀ £ÁAiÀÄÌ ¸Á|| ºÉÆ£ÉßUÀzÉÝ ¨sÀl̼À 10) ZÀAzÀÄæ UÉÆAqÀ ¸Á|| M§â£ÀPÀÌ® ºÉ¨Éî ¨sÀl̼À 11) ¸ÀzÁ£ÀAzÀ ªÉÆUÉÃgï ¸Á|| vÉAV£ÀUÀÄAr ¨sÀl̼À 12) ²æêÀÄw PÀÄ¥ÀÄà UÉÆAqÀ ¸Á|| ªÀgÀPÉÆqÀÄè ¨sÀl̼À 13) AiÉÆÃUÉñÀ zÉêÀfÓ ªÉÆUÉÃgï ¸Á|| «ÄAaªÀÄ£É ºÉ¨Éî ¨sÀl̼À ºÁUÀÆ E£ÀÆß EvÀgÀgÀ zÀĵÉàçÃgÀuɬÄAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄwÃAiÀĪÁV CwøÀÆPÀëöä ¥ÀæzÉñÀPÉÌ §AzÀÄ F PÀÈvÀå J¸ÀUÀ®Ä PÁgÀtÂÃPÀÈvÀªÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F PÀÈvÀå ªÀiÁrzÀ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ C¥Á¢vÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR°¹ PÁ£ÀƤ£ÀAvÉ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä «£ÀAw. F WÀl£Á ¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ £Á£ÀÄ ¨sÉÃn¤Ãr F «µÀAiÀÄzÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÉÄïÁ¢üPÁjgÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ZÀað¹ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä £À¤ßAzÀ «¼ÀA¨sÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹ ¸ÀܼÀ: ¨sÀl̼À ¸À»/-“ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 05/03/2024 (Emphasis added) A perusal at the complaint would no where indicate that any disfigurement of public place has happened or there is criminal 23 trespass into private property. Beach is a place open to public where Bhagwan Hanuman Dhwaj was sought to be erected. Permission would be necessary, but it does not amount to disfigurement of public place. Therefore, the added two offences also do not have any semblance of ingredients qua the facts. In that light, I deem it appropriate to follow the order passed by this Court, as quoted supra and obliterate the crime against the petitioner. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The FIR registered in Crime No.32 of 2024 by Bhatkal Rural Police Station and pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) & JMFC, Bhatkal, stands quashed qua the petitioner. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA bkp CT:MJ