Merely inciting feelings of one community without any reference to any other community will not attract 153A IPC: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court recently held that merely inciting the feelings of one community/group without making a reference to any other community/group will not attract the offence under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).This provision criminalises promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony..The judgment passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice John Michael Cunha states:."As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bilal Ahmed’s case referred above, in order to constitute the ingredient of said offence, it is necessary that atleast two such groups or communities should be involved. Merely inciting the feelings of one community or group without any reference to any other community or group cannot attract either of the offence under section 153A of IPC."Karnataka High Court.Factual Background.On February 17, 2010, while the complainant was looking to cross a road, around 200-250 people who were part of a procession threatened people not to cross the road and thereafter abused the complainant in vulgar language. It was alleged that the mob threatened the complainant not to cross the road, and that if he did, he would not reach home..The allegation against the mob was that it was behaving in such a manner so as to frighten Hindus and that on seeing the procession of Muslims, the former should flee from village..In this regard, a First Information Report was registered against the petitioners under Sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506 (criminal intimidation), 153A and 149 (unlawful assembly) of IPC..Aggrieved by this, the petitioners filed a petition before the High Court seeking to quash the FIR registered against them..Arguments raised.Counsel for the petitioners emphasized that the allegations made in the petition, even if accepted on their face value, do not constitute the ingredients of any of the offences alleged in the FIR. .There are no allegations in the complaint that the petitioners had acted with an intention to promote feeling of ill-will and hatred between religions and other groups, it was further added..The High Court Government Pleader, appearing for the State, submitted that the utterances directed at the complainant are sufficient to make out the ingredients of the offences incorporated in the FIR. It was argued that since the matter was under investigation, there was no reason to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)..What the Court held.After going through the rival contentions, the Court observed that none the ingredients of the alleged offences were made out..The Court noted that the threats alleged to have been issued to the complainant do not attract the ingredients of Sections 504 or 506 of the IPC. ."In order to constitute offences under these provisions, the accused ought to have intentionally insulted or given provocation to the complainant or any other persons intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break public peace. Such allegations are conspicuously absent in the FIR.".Pertinently, the Court additionally noted that though the petitioners are named in the FIR, there were no specific allegations that any of the petitioners either threatened, intimidated or hurled abuses at the complainant. .While concluding its order, the Bench averred that the mob had not done anything in order frighten Hindus or make them flee from the village. .In this view, the order reads, ."In the instant case, there are no allegations whatsoever that the petitioners have committed any acts with intent to promote feelings of hatred between different religious groups, rather, the very basis of the allegations is that the petitioners were behaving in such a manner that on seeing them, Hindus should get frightened and should run away from the village. This is the imagination or mere assumption of the complainant and not the actual commission of act by anyone of the petitioners. As a result, even the basic ingredient of the offence under section 153A IPC is not satisfied so as to proceed with the investigation against the petitioners.".With these observations, the Court allowed the plea and quashed the FIR lodged against the petitioners..[Read the order]