Protest Against SC's Ayodhya-Babri Masjid Decision Promotes Religious Enmity: Karnataka High Court In Alleged PFI Activist's Case

However, the court allowed the petition filed by an alleged member of the Campus Front of India (which is also a part of the PFI), and quashed the criminal proceedings against him as the prosecution failed to obtain prior sanction from the state government for taking cognizance of offence under Section 153(A) .

On the question of applicability of Section 153-A the bench said,

"Accused persons being the part of the CFI organisations and the petitioner being the local person residing near the university campus of Mangaluru, went along with the others with the banner of CFI and protested against the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in Ayodhya-Babri Masjid case which is nothing but promoting enmity between two groups on the ground of religion, which act is prejudicial to maintenance of harmony in Mangaluru area."

Safwan (accused no. 11) was charged in 2019 for offences punishable under Section 153-A read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3 of Karnataka Open Space Disfigurement Act of 1951 and 1981.

A suo moto complaint was registered by the Konaje police station after a group of people (including the petitioner), said to be belonging to CFI and PFI, went inside the Mangaluru University campus and uttered slogans against the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid decision.

The bench on going through the records noted that act is prejudicial to maintenance of harmony in Mangaluru area and it cannot be taken lightly. "There are witnesses, who have stated the presence of the petitioner among the group, who agitated against the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in Ayodhya-Babri Masjid case, which is nothing but the offences against the State punishable under Section 153-A of IPC."

However, the bench noted that neither the counsel for petitioner has argued on the point of law under Section 196 of CrPC, where sanction of the Government is necessary for taking cognizance of prescribed offences, nor the High Court Government Pleader has produced any such sanction granted for prosecution by the State.

Following which it held, "The learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance without considering the fact as to whether the prosecution has obtained sanction from the State. Therefore, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is liable to be quashed for want of sanction."

Accordingly, it quashed the proceedings pending against the accused.

Case Title: SAFWAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.513 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 435

Date of Order: 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

Appearance: HALEEMA AMEEN, ADVOCATE for petitioner; B.J. ROHITH, HCGP for respondent.