'How Is Shouting 'Jai Sriram' Inside Mosque An Offence?' : Supreme Court Asks Complainant, Seeks Karnataka Police's Stand

Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, for the petitioner, submitted that the proceedings were stayed within twenty days of filing the FIR, even when the investigation was at the preliminary stage.

"Alright, they were shouting a particular religious slogan. How is that an offence?" Justice Mehta asked.

Kamat argued that shouting a religious slogan in another religious place would amount to the offence of inciting communal disharmony under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code.

The bench asked if the accused persons had been identified. Kamat replied that CCT visuals had been collected and the police identified the accused persons, as recorded in the remand report. The bench asked if merely spotting the accused near the mosque would mean that they shouted the slogans.

"Are you able to identify the actual accused? What material you have brought?" the Court asked. Kamat clarified that he was only representing the complainant (caretaker of the mosque) and it is for the police to conduct the investigation and collect the evidence. The FIR need only give information about the offence and need not be an 'encyclopedia' containing all evidence, he added.

The bench, while saying that it was not issuing formal notice, asked the petitioner to serve a copy of the petition on the State of Karnataka. The matter will be posted next in January 2025.

Averments of the petitioner

As per the facts stated in the SLP, the complainant along with one Naushad Saqafi were sitting in the office area of the Badriya Jumma Masjid, at Mardala, Aithoor Village. At around 10:50 p.m., some unknown persons entered the compound/premises of the Mosque and started shouting/raising religious slogans "Jai Sriram".

When the complainant and Naushad Saqafi came out of their office, the two strangers exited the Mosque premises and sped away on a two-wheeling. Upon examining the CCTV footage, the complainant saw one duster car roaming suspiciously in front of the Mosque and also saw the two individuals who had entered the Mosque premises.

Following the registration of the FIR, police investigated and identified 2 accused and arrested them on September 25, 2023, at around 6:30 pm. The accused were then produced before the Magistrate and remanded to judicial custody. However, in the meantime, the accused moved for bail, which was granted to them on September 29, 2023.

Thereafter, the accused filed a writ petition for quashing the criminal proceedings. On November 29, 2023, the High Court stayed the proceedings before the civil judge and JMFC, Puttur, Dakshin Kannada. Consequently, the entire criminal proceedings were quashed on the ground that the allegation made in the complaint/FIR did not disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged.

What did the High Court say?

Justice M. Nagaprasanna of the High Court held: "Section 295A deals with deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. It is ununderstandable as to how if someone shouts 'Jai Sriram' it would outrage the religious feeling of any class. When the complainant himself states that Hindu - Muslims are living in harmony in the area the incident by no stretch of imagination can result in antimony."

The judgment has relied on the judgment of Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar (2017) which held that not every act or attempt to insult religion or the religious beliefs of a class of citizens would be penalised under Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code.

The judge quoted para.6 of the Dhoni judgment which states: "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 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..."

As for the other sections, the judge stated that there is no allegation that the incident alleged has caused public mischief or any rift for Section 505 IPC to sustain.

Further, the Court said: "The complaint nowhere even remotely touches upon the ingredients of Section 503 or Section 447 of the IPC. Finding no ingredients of any of the offences so alleged, permitting further proceedings against these petitioners would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice."

Grounds for challenging SLP

Primarily, the SLP has challenged the judgment as against the precedents of the Supreme Court whereby, it has criticised quashing criminal proceedings before the investigation could be completed when the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of cognisable offence.

It has been submitted that the observation of the High Court that shouting 'Jai Sriram' will not outrage the religious feelings of any class and the incident by no stretch of imagination can result antimony, itself shows that the occurrence of the incident cannot be denied, at least at this stage.

"such an incident has taken place within the Mosque premises, coupled with the threat given to the lives of Muslims, shows that the investigation ought not have been impeded as has been done by the High Court in the present case since the crux of the allegations does show the commission of cognizable offences which require investigation, all of which is legitimate prosecution," SLP averred.

Case Details: SRI. HAYDHARALI CM v. SRI KEERTHAN KUMAR & ORS., SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. 17009 OF 2024

Petition filed by Advocate Javedpur Rahman