2017 (4) TMI 1565 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking transfer of proceedings pending before the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Anantpur Andhra Pradesh to the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore in Karnataka - allegations made in the complaint constitute an offence Under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code or not - whether this Court in the obtaining factual matrix relegate the trial at some other place or grant him liberty to file an application Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing? HELD THAT - Section 295A does not stipulate everything to be penalised and any and every act would tantamount to insult or attempt to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of class of citizens. It penalise only those acts of insults to or those varieties of attempts to insult the religion or religious belief of a class of citizens which are perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class of citizens. Insults to religion offered unwittingly or carelessly or without any deliberate or malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of that class do not come within the Section - Emphasis has been laid on the calculated tendency of the said aggravated form of insult and also to disrupt the public order to invite the penalty. There is no hesitation in holding that the allegations remotely do not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence and therefore applying the principle stated in STATE OF HARYANA VERSUS BHAJAN LAL 1990 (11) TMI 386 - SUPREME COURT the complaint proceedings initiated against the Petitioner is quashed. In the case at hand as the complaint is quashed needless to say for the reasons for which the complaint is quashed shall squarely apply to the co-accused who is the Editor of the magazine. Therefore the same principle is applied and the complaint even against co-accused is quashed. Petition disposed off.

Issues Involved:
1. Transfer of proceedings.
2. Quashment of the complaint case.
3. Allegations under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Application of the principle of parity.
5. Judicial responsibility in issuing summons.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Transfer of Proceedings:
The petitioner sought the transfer of proceedings from the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anantpur, Andhra Pradesh to the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore, Karnataka. The Supreme Court issued a notice and stayed further proceedings in the complaint case pending before the Anantpur court.

2. Quashment of the Complaint Case:
The petitioner filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking quashment of the complaint case. The Court entertained this application based on the assertion that a similar complaint had been quashed in another trial court. The Court referenced a previous order in Criminal Appeal Nos. 843 and 847 of 2016, where criminal proceedings were quashed as the allegations did not satisfy the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 295A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

3. Allegations under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code:
The complaint was based on a magazine cover featuring a painting with the petitioner’s photo and the caption "God of Big Deals," which the complainant found offensive. The complainant's attempt to lodge an FIR was unsuccessful, leading to the filing of a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court examined whether the allegations constituted an offence under Section 295A IPC, which penalizes deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.

The Court cited the constitutional validity of Section 295A upheld in Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P., emphasizing that the section penalizes only those acts perpetrated with deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings. Insults offered unwittingly or carelessly do not fall within the scope of this section.

4. Application of the Principle of Parity:
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the allegations did not meet the essential ingredients of the offence and that the original proceeding should be quashed based on the principle of parity, as a similar complaint had been quashed. The Court agreed, noting that the allegations did not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence and quashed the complaint proceedings.

5. Judicial Responsibility in Issuing Summons:
The Court highlighted the responsibility of magistrates in scrutinizing allegations to ensure they meet the basic ingredients of the offence, satisfy territorial jurisdiction, and justify summoning the accused. This scrutiny is a primary judicial responsibility to prevent abuse of the judicial process.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court quashed the complaint proceedings against the petitioner, applying the principle of parity and noting the lack of essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 295A IPC. The Court also extended the benefit of quashment to the co-accused, emphasizing the importance of judicial responsibility in issuing summons. The transfer petition and the criminal miscellaneous petition were disposed of accordingly.

← Previous Next →