Case Name: ATUL KUMAR SABARWAL @ MADHUGIRI MODI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 22820 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
Date: Monday, Twenty-First of September, Two Thousand and Twenty- Six
Court: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
Quorum: Justice V. Srishananda
FACTS
The Petitioner, Atul Kumar Sabarwal @ Madhugiri Modi, was alleged to have posted a message through the Facebook account named “Hindu Samrat Dharmasena”. The message cautioned Hindus to be vigilant and stated that if the number of “jihadis” increased, no law, caste or wealth would protect them. It further stated that they would eventually be regarded as “kafirs” irrespective of their position or status and warned them to be careful before “the sword of satanic jihadis” reached their necks.
The complainant, being a member of social media monitoring cell, saw the message and found that by posting such a message, the petitioner has hurt the feelings of a particular community and the same would result in social disharmony. On his complaint, the Badanavanahalli Police Station, Tumkur, registered an F.I.R for offences under Section 295A and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”).
Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner approached the High Court of Karnataka under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 42 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) seeking to quash the F.I.R.
LEGAL ISSUES
- Whether the message posted on the Facebook account “Hindu Samrat Dharmasene” discloses the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 295A and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India- Empowers the High Courts to issue writs, directions or orders for the enforcement of rights and for any other purpose.
- Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860- Penalises deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India by insulting or attempting to insult their religion or religious beliefs, whether by words, signs, visible representation or otherwise.
- Section 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860- Penalises the making, publishing or circulating of any statement, rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, enmity, hatred or ill-will between different classes or communities.
- Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, to prevent abuse of the process of any court, or to secure the ends of justice.
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER- The Petitioner argued that on a plain reading of the message posted on the Facebook account of Hindu Samrat Dharmasene none of the ingredients of the offences under Sections 295A or 505(2) of the IPC were attracted.
RESPONDENTS- The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor argued that words used in the message, such as “jihadi” and “kafir”, were intended to hurt the feelings of the Muslim community. Therefore, it was contended that posting such a message on Facebook would result in social disharmony, and sought for the dismissal of the petition and the continuation of the criminal complaint as the matter needs to be investigated.
ANALYSIS
The Court examined Section 295A and Section 505(2) of IPC in order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties. On close reading of the ingredients of the above-mentioned sections, vis-à-vis the message posted on the Petitioner’s Facebook account, the Court did not find that the action initiated by the Badavanahalli Police Station required further investigation.
It was noted that the necessary ingredients to attract the offences were lacking. Accordingly, the Court rejected the Respondent’s contention that the matter needed to be investigated and held that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
JUDGEMENT
The Karnataka High Court held that the necessary ingredients of the offences under Sections 295A and 505(2) of the IPC were fulfilled by the message posted by the Petitioner. Consequently, the Writ Petition was allowed and the proceedings before the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class Court of Tumkur District were quashed.
CONCLUSION
The Court held that criminal proceedings under Sections 295A and 505(2) of the IPC cannot be continued where the essential ingredients of those offences are not disclosed by the impugned message, as such continuation would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: T. R. AISIRI RAO
Read the Judgment copy below :ATUL KUMAR SABARWAL @ MADHUGIRI MODI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS
