9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we would have been loath to entertain such an application but, in view of the asseverations made to the effect that a complaint of same nature arising from a different trial court has been entertained and quashed, we have entertained the same. 3. Learned Counsel has drawn inspiration from order dated September 5, 2016 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 843 and 847 of 2016 whereby this Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated in Complaint Case No. 1978 of 2015 titled as Jayakumar Hiremath v. Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Ors. filed in the Court of IX Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore for the offence punishable Under Section 295A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (Indian Penal Code). Be it noted, in the said case, though the High Court of Karnataka was moved Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it declined to intervene and quash the proceedings. This Court, upon perusal of the complaint and the allegations made in the complaint petition, opined that the allegations made in the complaint petition did not satisfy the ingredients to constitute an offence Under Section 295A read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and accordingly quashed the same. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... blic order, or tranquillity and, consequently, a law creating an offence relating to religion and imposing restrictions on the right to freedom of speech and expression cannot claim the protection of el. (2) of Article 19. A reference to Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, which guarantee the right to freedom of religion, will show that the argument is utterly untenable. The right to freedom of religion assured by those Articles is expressly made subject to public order, morality and health. Therefore, it cannot be predicated that freedom of religion can have no bearing whatever on the maintenance of public order or that a law creating an offence relating to religion cannot under any circumstances be said to have been enacted in the interests of public order. These two Articles in terms contemplate that restrictions may be imposed on the rights guaranteed by them in the interests of public order. 9. Learned Counsel then shifted his ground and formulated his objection in a slightly different way. Insults to the religion or the religious beliefs of a class of citizens of India may, says learned Counsel, lead to public disorders in some cases, but in many cases they may no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a). Having regard to the ingredients of the offence created by the impugned section, there cannot, in our opinion, be any possibility of this law being applied for purposes not sanctioned by the Constitution. In other words, the language employed in the Section is not wide enough to cover restrictions both within and without the limits of constitutionally permissible legislative action affecting the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(s) and consequently, the question of severability does not arise and the decisions relied upon by learned Counsel for the Petitioner have no application to this case. 7. On a perusal of the aforesaid passages, it is clear as crystal 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 malicio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only be the abuse of the process of the court, but also tantamount to travesty of justice. 12. In this regard, we may refer to a three-Judge Bench decision in Harbhajan Singh v. State of U.P. (1982) 2 SCC 101 wherein this Court granted benefit in appeal to one of the Accused persons, and thought it appropriate that similar benefit should be extended to the co-accused also. It is interesting to note that the said benefit was extended despite the fact that the earlier appeals of that Accused were dismissed by this Court on an antecedent date. It is profitable to reproduce the passages from the said judgment: 19. In the circumstances hereinabove stated, I am of the opinion that it will be manifestly unjust to allow the death sentence imposed on the Petitioner to be executed. The question that, however, troubles me is weather this Court retains any power and jurisdiction to entertain and pass any appropriate orders on the question of sentence imposed on the Petitioner in view of the fact that not only his special leave petition and review petition have been dismissed by this Court but also the further fact that his petition for clemency has also been rejected by the President. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
