Sanction U/S 196 CrPC Not Obtained: Karnataka High Court Quashes Hatred Case Against Telangana Legislator Raja Singh

The Karnataka High Court has held that without the necessary sanction under Section 196 of the CrPC, the proceedings under Section 153A of the IPC could not continue, thereby clarifying that the absence of sanction was a fundamental defect in the prosecution.

Justice M Nagaprasanna thus quashed the proceedings initiated against Telangana legislator Raja Singh Thakur and other accused for offences punishable under Sections 153A r/w 34 of the IPC and Section 25(1AA) of the Indian Arms Act.

“To allege offences under Section 153A and try them, it is imperative that the State should accord sanction for prosecution of offences under Section 153A.”

The case involves an incident that occurred on December 12, 2017, during a Hindu Virat Samvesh in Yadagiri District. The petitioners and others allegedly assembled for the event, despite being directed not to use arms or make controversial statements. The prosecution claims that the assembly was unlawful, with the intention to instigate people by delivering provocative speeches and displaying a sword on the stage. Consequently, a case was registered against the petitioners.

The police conducted an investigation and filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.133 of 2019 before a Magistrate in Yadagiri, charging the accused with offences under Section 153A of the IPC and Section 25(1AA) of the Arms Act. Due to one of the accused being a political representative, the case was transferred to a Special Court for trying offences against MPs/MLAs. The Special Court took cognizance of the offence, and the case was set for a hearing before charges were framed.

The petitioners approached the court, arguing that the proceedings should not be allowed to continue without the necessary sanction under Section 196 of the CrPC.

Section 196 of the Cr.P.C. specifies that no court can take cognizance of offences against the State, such as those under Section 153A of the IPC, without the prior sanction of the Central or State Government. The petitioners contended that the lack of this essential sanction at the stage of taking cognizance rendered the proceedings illegal.

They also argued that the offences under the Arms Act were not supported by eyewitnesses, and there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the petitioners had used arms. The absence of sanction and the merits of the charges under Section 153A and the Arms Act were cited as reasons for requesting the quashing of the proceedings.

The prosecution opposed the plea saying the petitioners have shown the sword, and made provocative speeches and, therefore, it has become an offence under Section 153A of the IPC. He would submit that the plea of sanction having not been taken at any point in time during the proceedings for the last 5 years, the same cannot and should not be permitted to be urged at this stage of the proceedings.

Findings:

The Court noted that Section 196 of the CrPC begins with a non-obstante clause and reads “No court shall take cognizance” for any offence under Section 153A, 153B, 295A or Section 505 of the IPC or even abatement as obtaining under Section 108A of the IPC.

"Sub-section (2) of Section 196 of the Cr.P.C. Further mandates that no Court shall take cognizance of the offence of any criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC other than the criminal conspiracy to commit a cognizable offence as described in the provision supra provided where the criminal conspiracy is one of which the provisions of Section 195 would apply.”

Then it held, 

“When these offences are alleged against the petitioners, the admitted fact is that there is no sanction accorded under Section 196 of the Cr.P.C. as the offences alleged are against the State. Therefore, without sanction being accorded for prosecution, the Court could not have taken cognizance as Section 196 of the Cr.P.C., which mandates that no Court shall take cognizance of the offence under Section 153A of the IPC.”

Therefore, it was held that for want of sanction and the sanction cutting at the root of taking of cognizance, the aftermath of the order of taking of cognizance even at the first instance would tumble down.

Relying on the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment in Kollu Ankababu v. Tirupathi Ramesh (2022), wherein the court has said that Section 153A of the IPC would require several conditions to be met before trial on the said offence has stated that the action should cause enmity between the two groups.

"Ill-will against one particular group will not attract Section 153A of the IPC. These actions should be alleged to be committed with the intention of causing the said enmity. The provision would become applicable only where enmity is caused on grounds of religion, race, place of birth or any other grounds whatsoever. The terms ‘any other grounds whatsoever’ cannot be read in isolation; they will have to be read along with the words that are in the other clauses of the provision. Differences or ill-will caused between two groups which are not defined on the basis of the requirement under Section 153A of the IPC would not attract the provision.”

Thus, it was concluded that the charges against the petitioners did not fulfil these requirements. The offences alleged were not sufficient to attract Section 153A of the IPC. Therefore, the court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings.

Appearance: Advocate Manjunath S Halawar for Petitioners.

HCGP Mahesh Shetty for Respondent.

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 397

Case Title: Rajasingh Takur @ T Raja Singh & Others And State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.2576 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order