Karnataka High Court quashes 2017 FIR against Sri Ram Sene President Pramod Muthalik for allegedly provocative statements

The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a first information report (FIR) registered in 2017 against Founder-President of fringe group Sri Ram Sene, Pramod Muthalik for allegedly making provocative statements while addressing a public gathering. [Pramod Mutalik v. State of Karnataka].Justice Hemant Chandangoudar observed that the concerned magistrate had taken cognisance of the offence in the complaint without prior sanction from the State government, which was required under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)..The complaint was filed by a police officer present at a gathering where Muthalik was the chief guest. The gathering had convened to celebrate Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Jayanti and also the inauguration of the Sri Ram Sene's office in Babaleshwar.According to the complaint, Mutalik drew a distinction between Hindus and Muslims based on how both communities treat cows. He is further stated to have commented that the hands of those who kill cows must be cut.Following this, a complaint was registered against him under Sections 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence) and 295A (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The complaint was registered on the ground that he provoked the gathering with an intention to create disharmony between two communities..Muthalik then moved the High Court seeking to quash the complaint. He contended that the cognisance taken by the magistrate was unlawful in the absence of a sanction specified under Section 196, CrPC (prosecution for offences against the State and for criminal conspiracy to commit such offence).He further underlined that statements of independent witnesses were not recorded. Hence, he contended that the chargesheet, based on police witness statements, was without any substance..On the other hand, the prosecution contended that the chargesheet disclosed the commission of the offences and that the magistrate had rightly taken cognisance..The High Court took note of the chargesheet, which revealed that apart from the statements provided by the police personnel, there were no recorded statements from independent eyewitnesses. Additionally, the Court observed that although the statement from the individual who allegedly recorded the function on video was obtained, no evidence from the video camera was presented to substantiate the allegations against Muthalik..Furthermore, the Court highlighted that Section 196 of the CrPC states that no court can initiate proceedings for offences punishable under Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 295-A of the IPC without obtaining prior sanction from the State government.Since there was no such sanction accorded by the State government, the Court concluded that the cognisance taken by the magistrate was without authority of law. Hence, the Court allowed the plea by Mutalik and quashed the proceedings against him..Muthalik was represented by Advocate Kadloor Satyanarayanacharya.The State was represented by High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) Gururaj V Hasilkar..[Read Order]