Case Name: JITENDRA NARAYAN TYAGI @ SYED WASEEM RIZVI v. UT OF J&K AND ANR.
Case Number: CRM(M) No. 174/2025, CM No. 382/2025
Date: 11 APRIL, 2025
Quorum: JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI
FACTS OF THE CASE
A criminal complaint by Danish Hassan Dar (Respondent No. 2) set the legal foundation for this matter against Jitendra Narayan Tyagi (Petitioner who formerly used the name Syed Waseem Rizvi). After becoming a Hindu following his faith change from Islam, the petitioner released public statements through both print media along with electronic media which criticized Islam’s teachings and Prophet Muhammad and the Quran. The spoken statements caused displeasure among multiple Indian Muslim communities as well as religious organizations throughout the country. The petitioner submitted two requests to the local police for an FIR registration followed by an unsuccessful submission of a complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) at Srinagar. The individual then submitted his request to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to obtain directions regarding the FIR documentation. The complaint received its assignment from the Srinagar branch of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (2nd Additional Munsiff). Instead of declaring the application as one under section 156(3) CrPC for police registration of FIRs the Magistrate shifted to Section 190 and Section 200 CrPC proceedings for taking cognizance and launched a judicial investigation. The petitioner submitted a petition at Srinagar’s High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh to obtain the cancellation of complaints and Magistrate’s cognizance order.
ISSUES
- Whether the Judicial Magistrate committed an improper action when he reviewed the complaint because Section 196 CrPC demands prior approval before such action?
- Whether the complaint’s present structure is valid and have processed it as a Section 156(3) CrPC application for an FIR?
- Whether the statements released by the petitioner show sufficient evidence to support charges under Sections 153-A, 295-A, and 505 IPC of the Indian Penal Code?
- Whether the start of criminal procedure warrants an infringement of the petitioner’s freedom of speech rights established through Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 153-A IPC
- Section 295-A IPC
- Section 504 IPC
- Section 505 IPC
- Section 196 CrPC
- Section 156(3) CrPC
- Section 190 and 200 CrPC
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER’S CONTENTION
Through Advocate Mr. Ankur Sharma who represented the petitioner argued that the complaint made by the respondent was meant to obtain police directions under Section 156(3) CrPC instead of starting criminal proceedings. The Magistrate failed to recognize the purpose of the complaint which led him to initiate proceedings through Section 190 combined with Section 200 CrPC. The main point of the petitioner’s lawsuit focused on how neither the Central nor the State Government had validated the cognizance order that lacked their essential Section 196 CrPC pre-approval. According to the authorities these offenses need prior government approval to proceed with legal action under Sections 153-A, 295-A, and 505 IPC. The petitioner claimed that prior sanction exists to protect against politically motivated and baseless prosecutions making the entire confession Void. The Magistrate illegally interrogated witnesses and issued warrants to the petitioner without validating the statutory requirements for authorization. The petitioner asserted through his defense that his potentially offensive comments fell under the scope of legitimate discourse while arguing for a breach of his Article 19(1)(a) fundamental right to free speech and expression.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION
As per the testimony of Danish Hassan Dar, the public statements made by the petitioner contained both offensive language and hate messages against a specific religious community which led to public disruption. The statements made by the petitioner deeply offended religious beliefs of Muslims throughout the nation. The complaint provided specific examples about how the petitioner’s conduct matched the legal definitions under Sections 153-A, 295-A, and 505 IPC. The respondent confirmed that the legal judicial process started properly and the Magistrate’s jurisdiction was valid because of the shown prima facie evidence from witness statements and the outrage reports. The respondent started by asking police to file an FIR but he needed to consult the Magistrates because police failed to take any action. The respondent considered that examination of witnesses combined with process issuance followed naturally from judicial proceedings after taking cognizance.
ANALYSIS
During their investigation of the current evidence combined with legal arguments the High Court concentrated on interpreting Section 196 CrPC’s statutory requirements. The law obstructs courts from initiating prosecution when charges include 153-A, 295-A and 505 IPC offenses unless authorizing entities like the Central Government, State Government or District Magistrate provide their approval. The legal safeguard exists to shield against criminal abuse during religious matters and public harmony-related proceedings. The court established that the magistrate displayed improper judgment through his unauthorized application of Section 190 CrPC before examining if the case should proceed under Section 156(3) CrPC. The complaint produced a clear message through its presentation that the author wanted investigative action from police rather than immediate judicial oversight. The Magistrate made an additional mistake through Section 200 CrPC proceedings while questioning witnesses although he lacked authority to handle the complaint without pre-authorized government permission. The High Court stressed that police cannot exercise cognizance in matters where procedural safeguards of legal process must be fully executed prior to seeking public or moral disapproval. Through his unauthorized handling of the complaint the Magistrate made Section 196 ineffective thus removing needed protections for the petitioner while failing to satisfy the necessary requirements for prosecution.
JUDGMENT
The Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (2nd Additional Munsiff) of Srinagar issued an order on 09.02.2022 that the High Court declared legally invalid for taking offense cognizance and issuing legal proceedings against the petitioner. The Court declared that the complaint mainly requested police investigative procedures which properly belonged under Section 156(3) CrPC. Taking cognizance while lacking Section 196 CrPC prior sanction approval constitutes a severe procedural mistake which made the proceedings unlawful. The High Court proceeded to issue court notice to the respondent while stopping additional judicial procedures in the Magistrate’s court until the final legal determination. The judicial record of the complaint would be retrieved from the trial court with future proceedings scheduled for 07.07.2025.
CONCLUSION
The present case demonstrates why procedural protections matter most within criminal law environments especially when religion combines with speech rights and public order issues. The High Court’s temporary court order establishes the fundamental requirement that prosecution of sensitive offenses needs mandatory prior sanction under Section 196 of the CrPC. The court emphasizes that judges must properly understand the inherent meaning of complaints to determine whether they will lead to investigations or result in formal criminal prosecution. The declared statements made by the petitioner may offend specific demographic groups but legal precedent requires that all process procedures remain observed prior to charging someone with criminal responsibility. The Court-authorised stay enables the petitioner to seek brief protection until the court completes examinations of constitutional and statutory inquiries. The results of this judicial proceeding will impact how free speech interacts with religious sentiment throughout Indian criminal law systems.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY RIMPLEPREET KAUR
