- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:173 CRL.P No. 103581 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103581 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. HUSEN BASH NABHI SAB AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. 6TH WARD, TAKKALKOTA TOWN, SIRUGUPPA, BELLARY-583121. 2. SAIBABA RAJASAB AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. 6TH WARD, TAKKALKOTA TOWN, SIRUGUPPA, BELLARY-583121. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. I.M. SHAHPURI AND SRI. A.D.NADAF, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TEKKALKOTA PS., SIRUGUPPA. REPRESENTED BY HIGH COURT GOVT. PLEADER, OFFICE AT DHARWAD HIGH COURT, DHARWAD-580011. 2. GADILINGAPPA @ GADILINGA S/O. SIDDAYYA AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. LABOUR, R/O. 5TH WARD, TAKKALKOTA TOWN, SIRUGUPPA, BELLARY-583121. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO QUASH ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2, IN CRIME NO.0070/2024, PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRUGUPPA, BALLARY, REGISTERED BY THE TEKKAKOTA P.S. FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 5 OF THE KARNATAKA PROTECTION OF RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.22 15:00:47 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:173 CRL.P No. 103581 of 2024 RELIGION ACT, 2022 AND CONTENTS AT THE TIME OF HEARING/ARGUMENT MAY BE CONSIDERED AS A PART OF THE PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The registration of the First Information Report (FIR) for the offence under Section 5 of the Karnataka Protection of Right to Freedom of Religion Act, 2022 (for short, ‘the Act’), is challenged in this petition. 2. The second respondent lodged the FIR alleging that on 17.07.2024, at about 5:00 p.m., while proceeding on his motorcycle towards Ballari-Siruguppa Highway 150A, near the veterinary hospital, he saw accused Nos. 1 and 2 (the petitioners herein) addressing passersby, who were holding saffron flags and heading toward Mantralaya. The accused allegedly stated that even if all the passersby gathered, they could not create a fly. They further stated that a fly that ate sugar placed before a temple or a dargah could not be reproduced; all pains, profits, and losses were temporary and could be solved by worshipping one God. The accused also reportedly preached that these teachings were consistent with those of Basavanna and Prophet Muhammad. It was further alleged that the accused, while persuading people to accept Prophet Muhammad as a messenger, spoke about the Quran, stating that it was a book sent for all humanity, that despite being over 1,450 years old, not a single word in the Quran had changed, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:173 CRL.P No. 103581 of 2024 and that reading it would provide guidance for leading a life of peace and securing paradise in the afterlife. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners were merely preaching the teachings of Basavanna and Prophet Muhammad. In the absence of any allegation that the petitioners attempted to convert any person from one religion to another, the allegations in the impugned FIR fail to satisfy the essential elements of an offence punishable under Section 5 of the Act. He further contended that, under Section 4 of the Act, only specific persons enumerated therein have the locus standi to lodge a complaint. The second respondent, being a bystander, does not qualify as a complainant under the Act, rendering the FIR legally unsustainable. 4. In response, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State submitted that the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of an offence under Section 5 of the Act. He further argued that the police, after investigation, have filed a charge sheet against the petitioners, and therefore, the instant petition, without challenging the charge sheet, is not maintainable. 5. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered. 6. Section 3 of the Act prohibits conversion from one religion to another through misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion, allurement, or promise of marriage. It states - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:173 CRL.P No. 103581 of 2024 that no person shall convert or attempt to convert, directly or otherwise, another person from one religion to another using any of these means, nor shall anyone abet or conspire to facilitate such conversion. Section 4 of the Act specifies who is competent to lodge a complaint, limiting it to the converted person, their parents, siblings, or relatives by blood, marriage, adoption, or association. Section 5 of the Act prescribes punishment for those who contravene Section 3. 7. In the present case, the complaint was lodged by a bystander who does not fall within the categories of persons enumerated under Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, the registration of the FIR by the second respondent, who lacks locus standi, is legally invalid. 8. Even if the allegations in the FIR are accepted at face value, they fail to satisfy the essential elements of an offence under Section 3 of the Act. There is no allegation that the petitioners converted or attempted to convert any person to another religion. The absence of these essential elements renders the allegations insufficient to constitute an offence under the Act. 9. Consequently, the registration of the FIR, culminating in the filing of the charge sheet, is vitiated. Allowing the investigate to continue would constitute an abuse of the process of law. 10. Hence, I pass the following: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:173 CRL.P No. 103581 of 2024 ORDER i) Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.0070/2024 registered by the Tekkalkote Police Station, Tekkalkota Circle, Ballari, culminating in filing of the charge sheet (pending on the file of the Civil Judge & JMFC, Siruguppa) is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE KMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61