- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010347332025 NC: 2026:KHC:46532 CRL.P No. 7623 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7623 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI BASANAGOUDA R PATIL (YATNAL) S/O RAMANAGOUDA B PATIL AGE -62 YEARS, OCC - MLA, VIJAYPURA CONSTITUENCY, OLD IB, STATION ROAD, VIJAYPURA- 586101, KARNATAKA ALSO AT: SINDAGI ROAD MAHAL AINAPUR AINAPURA, BIJAPUR, KARNATAKA- 586104 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATESH P. DALWAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ADARASHNAGAR POLICE STATION, VIJAYAPURA-586104 REPRESENTED BY Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010347332025 NC: 2026:KHC:46532 CRL.P No. 7623 of 2025 STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560001 2. ALLABAKSH DONGARISAB BADEGHAR S/O NOT KNOWN AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/AT IBRAHIM ROZA, VIJAYAPURA-586104 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI. MOHAMMED ALI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 (FILED U/S.528 BNSS) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH FIR IN CRIME NO.51/2025 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 ADARSH NAGAR POLICE STATION PENDING FILE OF THE VtH ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC IV COURT VIJAYAPURA FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 196(1)(a), 353(2) OF BNS 2023 PRODUCED AT DOCUMENT NO.1. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010347332025 NC: 2026:KHC:46532 CRL.P No. 7623 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel Sri. Venkatesh P. Dalwai, appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Anoop Kumar, learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri. Mohammed Ali, learned counsel appearing for No.2 and have perused the material on record. 2. The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the following prayer: "Wherefore it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to quash First Information Report in Crime No.51/2025 registered by the Respondent No. 1 Adarsh Nagar Police Station pending file of the Vth Addl Civil Judge & JMFC IV court Vijayapura for the offences punishable under Section 196(1) (a), 353(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 produced at Document No 1, in the interest of justice and equity." 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Crl.P.No.2490/2024 disposed on 25.06.2026, wherein it has held as follows: - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010347332025 NC: 2026:KHC:46532 CRL.P No. 7623 of 2025 "The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the registration of a crime in Crime No.32/2024 registered for offences punishable under Section 153, 504, 506 and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short). 2. Heard Sri. Girsih Bharadwaj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1. 3. The complainant though served has remained unrepresented. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the State are heard. 4. The petitioner is said to have made a speech on 04.03.2024, which becomes the fulcrum of the complaint on 05.03.2024 for the afore-quoted offences. The complaint then becomes a crime in crime No.32/2024. The registration of the crime has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. Since the entire issue has now sprung from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. The complaint reads as follows: " ೕ: ೕ ಇನ ೇಕ ಾಂೌಕ ೕೕ ಾೆ ಜಯಪರ ಇವೆ ಾನು- ಅಬುಬಕ ತಂ%ೆ &ಾ'ೇ(ಾಬ ಕಂ)ಾ* ವ+ಾ: 64 ವಷ- 'ಾ.: ಮು01ಂ ಉ%ೊ4ೕಗ: 6ವೃತ8 9:ಕ (ಾ: ರಜಪ;ತ ಗ1, ಜು<ಾ= ಮ0%ೆ ಹ.8ರ. ಜಯಪರ ?ೕ ನಂ: 7676370315 ಕಂಪ;4ಟ AೈC <ಾD0 ತಂದು Fೊಟ ¦gÁåG vÁ: 05/03/2024. ಾನು ೕನ Hಾಸದ ರಹJಾ0 ಇದುK ನನL ಮ ೆಯು ಜಯಪರ 'ೆ.ಎಂ &ೋDೆ ಇರುವ ರಜಪ;ತ ಗ1ಯ1 ಇರುತ8%ೆ. ಾನು ಈಗ 4 ವಷ-ಗಳ Pಂ%ೆ 9:ಕ ವೃ.8Qಂದ 6ವೃ.8+ಾ* ಈಗ 6ವೃತ8 Rೕವನ (ಾ*ಸುSೆ8ೕ ೆ. G ಾಂಕ: 04/03/2024 ರಂದು ಜಯಪರ ನಗರದ1 ಶುಭಂ JಾVೇಕ , ಗೇಶ JಾVೆಕ ಜನSಾ (ೇJಾ ಸಂಘ ಇವರು ಆYೕR0ರುವ 9JಾR ಜಯಂ.ಯನುL 9Zೕ ಬಸನೌಡ ಾ\ೕಲ (ಯSಾLಳ) ^ಾಸಕರು ಜಯಪರ ನಗರ, 9Zೕ &ಾ'ಾ0ಂ_ `ೋಗ ^ಾಸಕರು ೋಶಮaಾಲ ಮತbೇತZ aೈ%ಾ&ಾ)ಾದ - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010347332025 NC: 2026:KHC:46532 CRL.P No. 7623 of 2025 Sೆಲಂಾಣ &ಾಜ4, ಇವರ ೇತೃತdದ1 ಆಚಸ`ಾQತು. ಸದ ಜಯಂ. ಆಚರೆಯ FಾಲFೆf ರವgೆಯು ಜಯಪರ ಶಹರದ &ಾಮ ಮಂGರGಂದ, 0%ೆKೕಶdರ %ೇವ(ಾhನ ಾಂೌಕ ವೃತ8, ಲijೕ %ೇವ(ಾhನ ಮುಂGನ ಎಂ.R &ೋಡGಂದ 9JಾR ಸಕ-k ವ&ೆೆ ಬೃಹತ ರವgೆ ಮೂಲಕ 9JಾR ಸಕ-kೆ ಬಂದು ಅ1 ಸ<ಾJೇಶ ಜರು*ತು. ಈ ಸ<ಾJೇಶದ1 9Zೕ ಬಸನೌಡ ಾ\ೕಲ ^ಾಸಕರು ಜಯಪರ ನಗರ, 9Zೕ &ಾ'ಾ0ಂ_ `ೋಧ ^ಾಸಕರು ೋಶಮaಾಲ ಮತbೇತZ aೈ%ಾ&ಾ)ಾದ Sೆಲಂಾಣ &ಾಜ4, aಾಗೂ ಜ ಾSಾ (ೇJಾ ಸಂಘದ ಅಧ4: ಶುಭಂ JಾVೆಕ, ಗೇಶ JಾVೆಕ aಾಗೂ ಇನುL ಇತ&ೆ ಜನರು JೇGFೆಯ ೕ`ೆ ಇದKರು ಸದ ಸmೆಯು G ಾಂಕ:-04/03/2024 ರಂದು &ಾ.Z 9-15 ಗಂAೆ ಸು<ಾೆ ಾನು ಮತು8 ನನL ೆHೆಯ ಅ)ಾnಸ ತಂ%ೆ 6(ಾರ ಅಹ=ದ (ೈಯ4o ಕೂD ಜಯಪರ ಶಹರದ 9JಾR ಸಕ-ಲದ1 ಇ%ಾKಗ ರವgೆಯ ಮೂಲಕ 9JಾR ಸಕ-k ಬಂದು ಅ1 JೇGFೆಯ ೕ`ೆ aೋ* ಅ1 ?ದೆ 9Zೕ &ಾ'ಾ0ಂ_ `ೋಧ ^ಾಸಕರು ೋಶಮaಾಲ ಮತbೇತZ aೈ%ಾ&ಾ)ಾದ Sೆಲಂಾಣ &ಾಜ4, ಇವರು ಸmೆಯನುL ಉ%ೆKೕ90 9JಾR ಜಯಂ.ಯ ಬೆp PಂG mಾqೆಯ1 <ಾತ ಾಡುSಾ8 ಅr ಗ ಗ ಅಷಲsಾನ ಔರಂಗ'ೇr aೈ, ಇ u ಗ ಗ 9JಾR ಮaಾ&ಾಜ ಬನ ಾ aೈ' ಅಂSಾ ಇತ&ೆ ಪZೋದ ೆFಾ+ಾ* <ಾತ ಾDದರು ನಂತರ ನಗರ ^ಾಸಕ&ಾದ ಬಸನೌಡ ಾ\ೕಲ (ಯSಾLಳ) ಇವರು ಸmೆಯನುL ಉ%ೆKೕ90 9JಾR ಜಯಂ.ಯ ಬೆp PಂG ಮತು8 ಕನLಡ mಾqೆಯ1 <ಾತ ಾಡುSಾ8 "ಹ&ಾಮ Fೋರರು, Sಾಯಗಂಡು, ನಮ=ಕ ಹ&ಾvಗಳw, ಸುವdರ Fಾ ಬಾx, ಅಂSಾ )ೈ%ಾಡುSಾ8 ಅಲ1%ೇ “ಅಗರ ೕ&ಾ aಾಥ, aೋಂ, vನಸ `ರaಾSೋ ಗು¸ÉÌ, ಎನFೌಂಟ ಕರFೆ, ಏ{ | ಾ}(ಾ8ನ ನP WÁgÀ¸É )ಾರ ಆ ೆ ತ{ mಾರತ <ಾSಾ} 'ೈ, mಾರತ <ಾSಾ} 'ೈ ಛತZಪ. 9JಾR ಮaಾ&ಾಜ } 'ೈ ೖ ಕರSಾ •ಾ Fಾ4ಕರ ೆ, Fಾ" ಅಂSಾ" <ಾತ ಾDರುSಾ8&ೆ ಈ ತರಹದ aೇ€ೕFೆಗಳw Pಂದು ಮತು8 ಮು01ಂ 'ಾ4.ಗಳ ಮ%ೆ4 Jೈರತd, %ೆdೕಷ, Jೈಮನಸು mಾವ ೆ, ಭಯ ಹು\ಸುವಂತಹ FೋಮುಗಲmೆಯನುLಂಟು <ಾಡುವ, (ೌaಾದ-Sೆೆ ಧFೆf ತರುವಂತಹಗHಾ*ದುK ಇರುತ8Jೆ. ಈ ಸ<ಾJೇಶದ1 <ಾತ ಾDದ ಬೆp ಾನು ಮತು8 ನನL ೆHೆಯ ಅ)ಾnಸ ತಂ%ೆ 6(ಾರ ಅಹ=ದ (ೈಯ4o ಕೂD ಖು%ಾK* Fೇ€0FೊಂDರುSೆ8ೕJೆ. ಈ ಬೆp 1) 9Zೕ ಬಸನೌಡ ಾ\ೕಲ (ಯSಾLಳ) ^ಾಸಕರು ಜಯಪರ ನಗರ, 2) 9Zೕ &ಾ'ಾ0ಂ_ `ೋಧ ^ಾಸಕರು ೋಶಮaಾಲ ಮತbೇತZ aೈ%ಾ&ಾ)ಾದ Sೆಲಂಾಣ &ಾಜ4, ಇವರುಗಳ ೕ`ೆ ನನL ¦gÁåG ಇರುತ8%ೆ. ಈ ಬೆp ಾರ <ಾD ಬಂದು ¦gÁåG Fೊಡಲು ತಡJಾ*ರುತ8%ೆ. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010347332025 NC: 2026:KHC:46532 CRL.P No. 7623 of 2025 ತಮ= ^ಾd0ಕ Whether the subject complaint would become the ingredients of Sections 153-A or 505(2) of the IPC, is considered by this Court concerning this very petitioner, in an identical complaint on 30.01.2025 in Crl.P.No.10145/2024, which reads as follows: "The petitioner is before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.131/2023, for the offence punishable under Section 505(2) of the IPC. 2. Heard Sri Venkatesh P. Dalwai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Jagadeesha B.N., learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents – State. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: It is the case of the respondents - complainant that on 07.10.2023, at about 7.30 p.m., in Bankapur town, the petitioner addressed a speech concerning Sanatana Dharma, which according to the complainant, the petitioner had made statement that those who hoist the flag of Pakistan, in Belgaum are the grandchildren of Pakistanis. Based on the said incident, comes the impugned complaint. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri Venkatesh P. Dalwai, would contend that even if averments in the complaint are construed to be true, would not become offence under Section 505(2) of the IPC, as its ingredients do not meet. He therefore, seeks quashment of the crime. 5. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would refute the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that the police have registered a suo motu crime against the petitioner. The crime is now under investigation. The speech made by the petitioner undoubtedly forms the ingredients of Section 505(2) of the IPC. He would seek dismissal of the petition. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010347332025 NC: 2026:KHC:46532 CRL.P No. 7623 of 2025 respective parties and have perused the material on record. 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: "“UÉ, <ಾನ4 „ ಎ ಐ Fಾನೂನು ಮತು8 ಸುವ4ವ(ೆh ಬಂFಾಪರ ೕಸ ಾೆ. <ಾನ4&ೆ, ಾನು | R %ೊಡ†ಮ6, „ ಎ ಐ ತ6sಾ mಾಗ, ವಯಸು 52 ವಷ-, ಉ%ೊ4ೕಗ „ ಎ ಐ ಬಂFಾಪರ ೕಸ ಾೆ, ?ೕ)ೈk ನಂಬರ: 9480796063 6ೕಡುವ ಗಣ}ೕಕೃತ ಸFಾ- ತ„ೕ- ದೂರು. G ಾಂಕ: 13-10- 2023 ೇ ಇ¹é ತರುJಾಯ. ಾನು ಕHೆದ ಒಂದು ವಷ-Gಂದ ಬಂFಾಪರ ೕಸ ಾೆಯ1 ತ6sಾ mಾಗದ „ ಎ ಐ ಅಂVಾ ಕತ-ವ4 6ವ-PಸುSಾ8 ಬಂGದುK ಇರುತ8%ೆ. G ಾಂಕ: 07-10-2023 ರಂದು Pಂದೂ ಮaಾಗಣಪ. (ೇJಾ ಸv. ೆಹರು ಾಡ-ˆ ಕvೕ\ ಬಂFಾಪರ ಆ Gನ (ಾಯಂFಾಲ 9Zೕ ಬಸನೌಡ &ಾಮನೌಡ ಾ\ೕಲ (ಾ: ಯSಾLಳ ^ಾಸಕರು ಜಯಪರ ‰ಾನಸmಾ bೇತZ ಇವರು ಗಣಪ. ^ೇಷ ಪ;'ೆೆ ಆಗvಸು.8ದುK, Pಂದೂ ಮaಾ ಗಣಪ. (ೇJಾ ಸv. ವ.Qಂದ Pಂದೂ ಜನ 'ಾಗೃ. ಸ<ಾJೇಶದ1 mಾಷಣ <ಾಡುವವರು ಇ%ಾK&ೆ ಅಂSಾ )ಾ.= ೕ&ೆೆ oÁuɬÄAzÀ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J.J¸ï.L © J£ï CUÀ¹ªÀĤ, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¹§âA¢AiÀĪÀgÁzÀ ºÉZï ¹ 996, 1433, ¦¹ 1133, 1136, 882, 931 ಇವೆ ಕತ-ವ4Fೆf 6YೕR0ದುK ಇದುK ಅದರಂSೆ (ಾಯಂFಾಲ ಬಸನೌಡ &ಾಮನೌಡ ಾ\ೕಲ (ಾ: ಯSಾLಳ ಇವರು ಮತು8 ಇತರರು )ೈ{ eÁvÁದ ಮೂಲಕ ಬಂದು ಗಣಪ.ೆ ಪ;R0 ನಂತರ (ೇ%ೆ. d£ÀgÀ£ÀÄß GzÉÝò¹ D ¢£À ¢£ÁAPÀ: 07-10-2023 gÀAzÀÄ 18-10 UÀAmÉUÉ »AzÀÆ ªÀĺÁ UÀt¥Àw ¸ÉêÁ ¸À«Äw ವ.Qಂದ Pಂದೂ ಜನ 'ಾಗೃ. ಸ<ಾJೇಶವ ಜರು*ದುK ಸದರ Pಂದೂ ಜನ'ಾಗೃ. ಸ<ಾJೇಶದ Pಂದು ಮaಾ ಸmಾ ಗಣಪ. ೇJಾ ಸv., ಅಂದ&ೆ ಶ}8, ಗಣಪ. ಎಂದ&ೆ ಮು}8, ಬಂFಾಪರದ ಗಣಪ. ಶ}8 ?ದಲು. ೊ.8ರ`ಾ1, - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010347332025 NC: 2026:KHC:46532 CRL.P No. 7623 of 2025 ಗಣಪ.ಯನುL ಸdಲŠ ತVೆಯುವ ಪZಯತL <ಾD%ಾಗ ನಮ= ಗಣಪನ ಶ}8 ಇD ಕನLಡ ಾDೆ .€Qತು. FಾಂೆZ ಸFಾ-ರ ಬSಾ- ಇದK aಾೆ )ೆಳಾಯ1 ಾ}(ಾ8ನ ಧ‹ಜ aಾG%ೆ ಅವ&ೆಲ1 ಸFಾ-ರದ ?ಮ=ಕfಳw ಇದು ಗಣಪ. ಭಕ8ರ ಶ}8, ಾJೆ`ಾ1 ^ೆZೕಷŒJಾದ ಸ ಾತನ ಧಮ-Fೆf (ೇದವರು, ಶdದ ಕ`ಾ4ಣFಾf* ಇರುವರು, ಇದನುL FೆಲವgÀÄ ಅವaೇಳನ <ಾಡು.8%ಾK&ೆ, ನನೆ ಅ ಾ4ಯJಾದ&ೆ ಸುಮ= ೆ ಕೂಡುವG`ಾ1. mಾರತ %ೇಶ ಈ ಸಂಸ•.ಯ ಆ‰ಾರದ ೕ`ೆ ಎಲ1gÀನುL ಒಗೂpD0Fೊಂಡು ಬಂG%ೆ. ಆದ&ೆ Fೆಲವ %ೇಶಗಳ1 ಈ ಸಂಸ•. ಇ`ಾ1 ನಮ= ಸಂಸ•.ಯ ರುದŽ <ಾತ ಾಡುವರ ರುದŽ ಧ‹6 ಎತ8ಲು ಾJೆ`ಾ1 ಒಂ%ಾಗ)ೇಕು. Fೆಲವೆ mಾರತ ಶ}8^ಾ+ಾಗುವದು, ಸುಭದZJಾ*ರಲು ಇqಾ ಇ`ಾ1, ನಮ= ಸರFಾರದ1 +ಾವ%ೇ ಗಲ)ೆ+ಾ%ಾಗ ಾವ ದಂೆFೋಧೆ ತಕf 9bೆ 6ೕD%ೆKವ, FಾಂೆZೕ ಸರFಾರ ಬಂದ ೕ`ೆ )ೆಳಾಯ1 ಾ}(ಾ8ನದ ಧ‹'ಾ aಾ&ಾD%ೆ. ಧ‹ಜ aಾ&ಾD0ದವರು ಾ}(ಾhನದ ?ಮ=ಕfಳw. 9ವ?ಗp, Fೋ`ಾರದ1 ಗಲmೆಗHಾ*%ೆ. ೕಸರ ೕ`ೆ ಕಲು1 ತು&ಾDದುK ಸಣ•ಘಟ ೆ ಎಂದು aೇಳw.8%ಾK&ೆ, ನಮ= ಹುಡುಗುರು ಇ ೊLಬnರ ªÉÃಶ aಾ}Fೊಂಡು ಗಲmೆ <ಾಡುವಂತ aೇDಗಳಲ1. Fೆಲವೆ ಗಣಪನ ರವgೆ ಅವರ ಓgಯ1 aೋದ&ೆ ಉಯುತ8%ೆ. ಈ ಮಕfಳw ನಮ= %ೇಶದ ಅನL .ಂದು ಾ}(ಾ8ˆ Rಂ%ಾ)ಾo ಅನುL.8%ಾK&ೆ. 2024ರ ನಂತರ ಾ}(ಾhನ ದ1 ಗಣಪ.ಯನುL ಪZ.qಾŒಪ ೆ <ಾಡುSೆ8ೕJೆ. ಾ}(ಾhನದ ಯುವಕರು ?ೕG ಪZ‰ಾ6 )ೇಕು ಅಂSಾ&ೆ, ನಮ= Fೆಲವರು ಾ}(ಾ8ನ } 'ೈ ಅಂSಾರು aೈ)ೆZೕ‘ ತ€ಯ ಾಯಕರು ಮು01ಂ&ೆ`ಾ1 ನಮೆ ಓಟು aಾ}%ಾK&ೆ ಎಂದು aೇ€Fೊಳw’Sಾ8&ೆ. Pಂದುಗ€ೆ ಒಂ%ಾ* ಒಂದುಕVೆ ಒAಾ* ಓಟು aಾಕಲು ಶ}8ವಂತ&ಾಗ)ೇಕು. ಾವ Pಂದುಗಳw %ಾv-ಕ ಕುಟುಂಬ ಎನುLವದನುL ಾಸುSೆ8ೕJೆ ನಮ= ಸಂ(ಾfರ, ಅದು ನಮ= ಬಲPೕನSೆಯ`ಾ1, ಸ ಾಥನ ಧಮ-ವನುL aಾಳw <ಾಡಲು ಇ.aಾಸದ1 ಎಂSೆಂತವರ ಪZಯತL ಪಟರು ನಮ= ಸ ಾತನ ಧಮ-ವನುL }ಂ“ತು8 ಅ€ಾDಸಲು ಆ*`ಾ1, ಈ ಬಂಡುFೋರರು ನಮ= ೆLೕನು <ಾಡಲು ಆಗುತ8%ೆ? ನಲವತು8 ವಷ-Gಂದ ಈ ಬಂFಾಪರದ ಸಂಘಟ ೆ ಭಷJಾಗತ8¯É ಬರು.8%ೆ ಾನು |'ಾಪರದ1 ನನೆ (ಾಬರ ಓಟು )ೇFಾ*ಲ1 ಅಂತ aೇ€%ೆKೕJೆ ನಮ=ವದು ಸಂಘಟ ೆ+ಾ*%ಾK&ೆ ನಮ=ವ&ೇ ªÉÇÃಟು aಾ}ದ&ೆ (ಾಕು 20 ವಷ-ದ Pಂ%ೆ ಕನLಡ ಕ0ದ ೕಡಂೆ ಕನLಡ ಕತ ಹುಡುಗ&ೇ ೕಡಮ=6ೆ ಕಲು1 ಒೆಯಲು aೋ*%ಾK&ೆ. ಅPÀâ ಎಂದೂ ಮುಂ%ೆ ಬಂದು ಯುದŽ <ಾDಲ1. ಈಗ ಈ ಮಕfಳw ನಮೆ dA)ೆ SೋಸುSಾ8&ೆ ನಮ= ಮ ೆಯ1ಯ ಜಂ)ೆ ಉHಾ’ಗD† aೆಾx{ ಇಲ1. ಮುಸ`ಾ=ನರು ಎಂದೂ ನಮ= ಅಣ• ತಮ=ಂGರು ಆಗುವGಲ1 6ೕವ ಸುಮ= ೆ .€ದುFೊಂDGKೕ )ಾQ )ಾQ - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010347332025 NC: 2026:KHC:46532 CRL.P No. 7623 of 2025 ಅಂತ aೇಳw.8GKೕ ಆದ&ೆ ಅವರು ತಮ= ಬುGKಯನುL Sೋಸ%ೇ |ಡುವGಲ1. ಮುಸ`ಾ=ನರು ಅವರು ನಮೆ ಎಂದೂ Pಂದುಗಳw ಅನುLವGಲ1 ನಮ= Jೈಗಳw ಅಂತ aೇಳwSಾ8&ೆ ಆ JೇHೆಯ1 6ೕವ aೇೆ ಅಣ•-ತಮ=ಂG&ಾಗು.8ೕ. 6ೕವ +ಾJಾಗ`ಾದರೂ ಮ0ೕG ೕ`ೆ %ಾ€ <ಾDGKೕ&ಾ ಆದ&ೆ 9ವ?ಗpದ1 Pಂದುಗಳ ೕ`ೆ %ಾ€ <ಾD%ಾK&ೆ. +ಾವ ಸುHೇಮಗ ಅವ ಔರಂಗ'ೇಬ, ಅPÀâ, ಮaಾ&ಾಾ ಪZSಾಪ ಅಂದ&ೆ ಚD†ಯ1 ಹುೆx ಹುಯುKFೊಳw’.8ದK. ನಮ= Pಂದು ಶ}8ಯನುL Sೋಸ)ೇಕು ಅಂತ ಮುಂSಾ* <ಾತ ಾDದರು. ಸದಯವರು mಾಷಣವನುL (ಾಯಂFಾಲ 06-10 ಘಂAೆೆ ಾZರಂಭJಾ* 07-30 ಘಂAೆೆ mಾಷಣ ಮುFಾ8ಯ ಆ*ದುK ಇರುತ8%ೆ. ಬಸನೌಡ &ಾಮನೌಡ ಾ\ೕಲ (ಾB ಯSಾLಳ ಇವರು ಧ ಗುಂಪ, 'ಾ.-'ಾ.ಗಳ ಮದ4, %ೆdೕಷವನುLಂಟು <ಾಡುವದು ಮತು8 ಸaೌಧ-Sೆೆ )ಾದಕJಾಗುವ ಕೃತ4ಗಳನುL <ಾಡಲು mಾಷಣGಂದ ಧ ಮ.ೕಯ ಮೂಲವಂ9ಯ ಮತು8 Fೋಮುಗಳ ನಡುJೆ ಅ(ೌaಾಧ-ವನುL ಅಥJಾ Jೈರ, %ೆdೕಷ, Jೈಮನ¹ìˆ mಾವ ೆಗಳನುL aೆ“xಸಲು (ಾವ-ಜ6ಕ Fೆಡು}ೆ FಾರಣJಾಗುವ ಮ.ೕಯ %ೆdೕಷmಾಷಣ <ಾDದುK ಇರುತ8%ೆ. ಆ FಾಲFೆf ಾನು Fಾಯ-ಕZಮದ ಾZರಂಭGಂದ ಮುFಾ8ಯJಾಗುವವ&ೆಗೂ ಬಂ%ೋಬ8 ಕತ-ªÀå 6ವ-ಹೆ%ೊಂGೆ ಾನು Fೇ€0FೊಂDದುK, ಮತು8 ೋDದುK ಾೆಯ 0ಬnಂGಗಳw ಅಲ1%ೇ „ .0 931 ೇದವರು mಾಷಣವನುL ಾೆಯ Fಾ4<ಾ&ಾದ1 “.Zಕ0ದುK, ಈ Gನ ಾೆಯ 0ಬnಂG DYೕವನುL 0 D ಮೂಲಕ ತುಂ|0Fೊಂಡು ಬಂದು aಾಜರಪD0ದುK, ಈಗ ೋD sಾ.Z<ಾDFೊಂಡು ತಡJಾ* ದೂರು 6ೕDದುK ಆzÉ. ಬಸನೌಡ &ಾಮನೌಡ ಾ\ೕಲ ¸Á: ಯSಾLಳ ಇವರ ೕ`ೆ ಕಲಂ 505(2) ಐ„0 ೇದKರ ಅDಯ1 ಸFಾ- ತ„- ದೂರು ಇರುತ8%ೆ. ತಮ= ^ಾd0.” 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. 8. Section 505(2) of the IPC reads as follows: "505. Statements conducing to public mischief. (1) xxx - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010347332025 NC: 2026:KHC:46532 CRL.P No. 7623 of 2025 (2) Statements creating or promoting enmity, 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 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." 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: “…. …. …. 10. 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: "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, - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010347332025 NC: 2026:KHC:46532 CRL.P No. 7623 of 2025 racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity, or (c) * * * Shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." 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." 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. 11. 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 sub-section. 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 Section 505. The words "whoever makes, publishes or circulates" used in the setting of Section 505(2) cannot be interpreted disjunctively but only as - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010347332025 NC: 2026:KHC:46532 CRL.P No. 7623 of 2025 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. 13. xxx 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. 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 group cannot attract either of the two sections. 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.” (Emphasis supplied) Later, the Apex Court in the case of MANZAR SAYEED KHAN V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in (2007) 5 SCC 1 “…. …. …. - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010347332025 NC: 2026:KHC:46532 CRL.P No. 7623 of 2025 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: “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 tranquility, or (c)*** shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” 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 Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short) and the prosecution has to prove prima facie the existence of mens rea on the - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010347332025 NC: 2026:KHC:46532 CRL.P No. 7623 of 2025 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. 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 “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) 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. 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, - 15 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010347332025 NC: 2026:KHC:46532 CRL.P No. 7623 of 2025 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. 20. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 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. 9. 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: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter - 16 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010347332025 NC: 2026:KHC:46532 CRL.P No. 7623 of 2025 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. (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 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. (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. - 17 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010347332025 NC: 2026:KHC:46532 CRL.P No. 7623 of 2025 (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. (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) 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER a. The criminal petition is allowed. 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. " In the light of the issue standing completely answered, despite the vehement opposition of the learned High Court Government Pleader, I deem it appropriate to follow suit and obliterate the crime against the petitioner. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The criminal petition is allowed; (ii) The impugned crime in crime No.32/2024 registered by respondent No.1/Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Vijayapura, pending on the file of I JMFC, Vijayapura stands quashed." - 18 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010347332025 NC: 2026:KHC:46532 CRL.P No. 7623 of 2025 In the light of the order passed by this Court (supra) and for the reasons aforementioned, the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) Proceedings in Crime No.51/2025 stand quashed, qua the petitioner. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27