Title: Rajasingh Takur @ T Raja Singh & Others And State of Karnataka
Case no.: CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2576 OF 2023
Decided on: 6th October, 2023
Coram: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
Introduction
Karnataka High Court Quashed the hatred case against Telangana legislator Raja Singh. Justice M. Nagaprasanna while delivering his judgement made notice of the point that proceeding under section 153A cannot be permitted in the absence of sanction under section 196 CrPC. Section 196 CrPC deals with offences and criminal conspiracy against state. It expressly mentions that “no court shall take cognizance” for any offence under Section 153A, 153B, 295A or Section 505 of the IPC or even abatement as obtaining under Section 108A of the IPC. Hence, Karnataka High Court allowed this petition.
Facts of the case
The petitioners/ accused in the present petition have challenged the proceedings under the offences punishable under Sections 153A r/w 34 of the IPC and Section 25(1AA) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. During an incident in Yadagiri district, the petitioners along with others joined as a conglomeration to attend Hindu Virat Samvesh. The said attendants were prohibited from using any arms or making any controversial comments at the Samvesh. It is alleged that despite this, the petitioners formed an unlawful assembly and instigated people by using provocative statements and at the end exhibited a sword on the stage. This became a crime and in the chargesheet of the police, they were booked under Section 153A r/w 34 of the IPC and Section 25(1AA) of the India Arms Act. This matter was however, transferred to a special court since one of the accused was a political representative, in order to try offences against MP/MLAs. The special court committed the matter to Court of Sessions as the offence alleged was triable by the Court of Sessions. It is then the Court of Sessions registers the crime and summons is issued to the petitioner accordingly. The petitioners have then approached this court.
Court’s observation and analysis
In order to try offences under section 153A, it is imperative that the State should accord sanction for the same. Section 196 CrPC deals with offences and criminal conspiracy against state. It expressly mentions that “no court shall take cognizance” for any offence under Section 153A, 153B, 295A or Section 505 of the IPC or even abatement as obtaining under Section 108A of the IPC. Sub-section (2) of Section 196 of the Cr.P.C. further mandates that no Court shall take cognizance of the offence of any criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC.
It is imperative, that an offence has to be tried in the manner as provided by the statute. The setting of trial is the aftermath of taking of cognizance. Taking of cognizance can be only in the aftermath of according sanction under Section 196 of the Cr.P.C. In the light of no sanction, the proceedings under Section 153A cannot be permitted to be continued against the petitioners. This would be with regard to the sanction.
The High Court, in its deliberation on Section 153A of IPC, has emphasized that specific conditions must be met for a trial to proceed on charges related to this offense. It has clarified that such actions should result in the promotion of hatred or hostility between two groups rather than mere ill-will against one particular group. Moreover, the alleged actions must be carried out with the intent of fostering this enmity. This provision is applicable only when enmity arises based on factors like religion, race, place of birth, or any other similar grounds.
The High Court further went on to say that it is evident that the alleged offences do not align with the elements outlined in Section 153A of IPC and are insufficient for its application. Consequently, further legal proceedings on these grounds would amount to an abuse of the legal process and could lead to a miscarriage of justice.
“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 fall into a 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- Amrita Rout
