IN A quite recent judgement of the case – Sri Suresha and 4 other residents of Mangaluru v. State of Karnataka and Another, delivered on September 20, 2024, Justice M. Nagaprasanna, at the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru has declared in very clear terms that sloganeering “Bharat Mata ki Jai” would only lead to harmony and never a discord. The petitioners challenged registration of a crime in case No. 81 of 2024 at Konaje police station of Mangalorecity in D K District for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 153A, 504, 506 and 149 of the IPC. The facts of the case, in brief are that on June 9, 2024, between 8.45 pm and 9.15 pm, one Harish, Nanda Kumar, Subash and Kishan Kumar were returning back after finishing the celebrations of victory and taking of oath by the Prime Minister.

 

When they reached Samadan Bar of Boliyar Gram, Ullak Taluk, it is the case of the petitioners, that they were attacked by 25 persons alleging how they raised slogans of “Bharat Mata Ki Jai” and one of them is said to have stabbed into stomach of Harish and back of Nanda Kumar. Based on the said incident, on the very night Kishan Kumar lodged a complaint at 11 pm against 23 persons. It is after registration of the crime became a crime in Crime No. 80/2024 which came to be registered not by the accused but by one P K Abdulla alleging that the petitioners went near Mohiuddin Jumma Masjid in Boliyar and threatened him and others with dire consequences and asked them to leave the country. On those allegations the police registered crime 81/2024. After registration of the crime, the petitioners moved the High Court challenging the said registration of crime. In the decision of the case-Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra- (2007) 5 SCC 1, the Supreme Court has held that for applying section 153A IPC, the presence of two or more groups or communities is essential, whereas in the present case, no such groups or communities were referred to in the news article.

 

The other substantive offence, which has been applied by the investigating agency is section 504 IPC. The said offence can be invoked when insult by a person invokes him to break public peace or to commit any other offence. There is no such allegation in the FIR that owing to the alleged offensive post attributable to the appellant, the complainant was provoked to such an extent that he could indulge in disturbing the public peace or commit any other offence. Hence, the FIR lacks the necessary ingredients of the said offence as well. Since, the HC has found that the foundational facts essential for constituting the substantive offences under sections 153A and 504 IPC are not available from the admitted of prosecution, allegations qua the subsidiary offences under sections 34 and 120B IPC would also be nonest. The complainant has also alleged in the FIR that the accused intended to blackmail him by publishing the news article in question.

 

However, there is no allegation in the FIR that the accused tried to extract any wrongful gain or valuable security from the complainant on the basis of the mischievous/ malicious post. The Apex Court did not permit further investigation even in a crime before it. The FIR itself was quashed, as the HC of Uttarakhand had rejected the petition which challenged the FIR. In the light of the judgements of the Apex Court and unequivocal facts narrated, what unmistakably emerged is high improbability of the happening of the incident, even, against the second respondent/complainant, Abdulla, the complaint cannot but be held to be a counter-blast to what the petitioners have registered not against the complainant, but against several accused named therein. The Karnataka HC has referred to a judgement by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case –Kollu Ankababu v. Tirupathi Ramesh –(2022) SCC OnLine AP 2812, wherein the said HC has held that “17. The ingredients necessary for making out an offence under section 153-A(a) is that the accused person by words spoken or written etc., 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 on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever. “18.

 

The ingredients for making out an offence under section 153-A(b) is the Commission of 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. “19. The other ingredients necessary is to organise any exercise, movement, drill etc., so that participants in such activities can be trained to use violence or criminal force against any religious, racial or language or regional or group or caste or community and such activity for any reason whatsoever causes or likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or communities. “20.

 

The language in all the three sub-clauses of section 153-A require the following conditions to be met before any offence can be said to have been committed within this provision: (a) The actions should cause enmity between groups; ill-will against one group would not attract the above provisions. (b) These actions should be committed to cause such enmity. (c) This provision would be applicable only where enmity is caused on grounds of race, religion, place of birth, evidence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever. (d) Differences or ill-will caused between two groups which are not defined on the basis of above requirements would not attract the provisions of section 153-A IPC.” In the light of cited facts and judgements, permitting even investigation into the sloganeering of ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’, which can be by no stretch of imagination be promoting disharmony or enmity amongst religions. This slogan will only lead to harmony and never a discord. The Karnataka HC has allowed the criminal petition and quashed the FIR registered against the petitioners at Konaje police station, in Mangalore city.