Terrorist Activities Are Perpetrated By Fanatics To Achieve Religious Supremacy, Must Blame Themselves If They Get Into Trouble: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court refused to interfere with the decision of the Central Government to hand over the investigation in the alleged murder case of one Harsha at Shivamogga, to the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
A division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice J M Khazi, dismissed the petition filed by one Roshan A who is an accused in the case. The court said, “If according to the petitioner, the sanction order was issued without applying mind or is invalid for any other reason, the same has to be thrashed out by the trial court after recording evidence.”
The petitioner and other accused are facing trial for the offences punishable under sections 143, 201, 204, 212, 302, 341 read with section 34 of IPC and sections 16, 18, 19 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The Central Government, by its order dated 21.03.2022 had directed the NIA to take up an investigation.
The petitioner had sought to quash this order issued under section 6 (5) read with section 8 of the NIA Act entrusting the investigation to the NIA and the sanction order dated 16.08.2022, issued under section 45 of UA(P)A to prosecute and order of the Special Court taking cognizance for the offence.
One of the contentions raised by the petitioner was that the incident was one of murder, but without any valid reasons, the stringent provisions of UA(P)A were invoked under the guise that a terrorist act had been committed. There were no grounds to invoke sections 16, 18, 19 and 20 of UA(P)A. This was only to target the minority community.
The NIA opposed this by submitting that the intention of the accused was to strike terror in a section of society. The deceased was a cow protection activist and a member of Bhajarangadal. Irked by the activities of the deceased, the accused had hatched a conspiracy to kill him, as that one killing would terrorise the section of society.
Moreover, only after arriving at a conclusion that a scheduled offence had been committed, an order under section 8(5) of the NIA Act was passed by the Central Government entrusting the investigation to NIA.
Considering the same, the court termed it to be 'fallacious'. Then it said, “Terrorism has no territorial bounds, though it has nothing to do with any particular religion, if terrorist activities are perpetrated by fanatics to achieve religious supremacy decrying the other religions and thereby pose a threat to integrity, unity and stability of the nation, people of such mind set have to blame themselves if they get into trouble.”
It added “The initial burden is on the prosecution to establish its case, and if the petitioner or any other accused of this case has the feeling that members of minority community are targeted even though scheduled offence is not committed, the prosecution witnesses can be discredited in the cross-examination. In other words it is a matter of trial, therefore the argument based on this ground also fails.”
The court also rejected the contention of the petitioner that registration of FIR by NIA was not permitted and it was a new FIR or a second FIR for the same incident.
The court said “It is neither a new FIR nor a second FIR. Section 6(1) of the NIA Act clearly states that FIR has to be registered by the officer-in-charge of the police station and according to sub-section (6), once a direction is given under subsection (4) or sub-section (5), the police officer of the State Government shall transmit the relevant documents and records to the NIA. That means while transmitting, FIR already registered at the police station is to be forwarded to the NIA, and if the NIA gives another number, it is for its record purposes.”
Court noted that a decision as to the existence of the commission of a scheduled offence of such gravity that requires investigation by the NIA must be viewed from the perspective of the Central Government and not from the perspective of the accused, for any accused does not readily accept investigation by a specialised agency like NIA.
The court held “The records submitted by the Central Government show such a satisfaction being arrived at after examining related documents before passing order under section 6 (5) of NIA Act. No infirmity is seen in the order dated 21.03.2022.”
Finally, the court rejected the contention of the petitioner that in some other cases of murder similar to the incident in this case, the investigation was not handed over to the NIA and therefore prosecuting the petitioner for stringent offences under UA(P)A is violative of equality before law.
It said “Without having details of other cases, the contention of the petitioner cannot be appreciated. Even otherwise, a decision as to invocation of offences under UA(P)A has to be taken in the background of facts and circumstances of each case, general inference cannot be drawn.”
Accordingly, it dismissed the petition.
Appearance: Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, for Advocate Mohammed Tahir, for Petitioner.
ASGI S.V.Raju and DSGI Shanthi Bhushan H, for R1 & R2.
SPP Vijay Kumar Majage, for R3.
ASGI S.V.Raju and Advocate P.Prasanna Kumar, for R4.
Advocate J.P.Shivappa Gowda for Advocate Pavan Sagar, for R5.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 423
Case Title: Roshan A AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 7897 OF 2023