PFI student wing members who protested Ayodhya judgment promoted enmity between two groups: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court recently stated that members of the student wing of the now banned Popular Front of India (PFI) protesting against the Supreme Court's judgment in the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid case in 2019 promoted enmity between two groups on the ground of religion [Safwan v State]. .Justice K Natarajan made the observation while quashing criminal proceedings against the accused due to lack of sanction from the government before cognizance was taken of the offence under Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)."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," the Court recorded. .The petitioner had sought quashing of the proceedings after a complaint was filed against him and other members of the Campus Front of India (CFI) for raising slogans and protesting against the top court's judgment inside Mangaluru University..While passing its order, the Court considered the fact that the petitioner along with others had fixed posters in public places with the caption, "all should awake against refusal and for justice and to raise slogan".These acts of all the accused were found to be prejudicial to maintenance of harmony in Mangaluru, and thus the Court opined that they could not be taken lightly. "Nothing but promoting enmity between two groups on the ground of religion, which act is prejudicial to maintenance of harmony in Mangaluru area," the order stated..Further, it was noted that witnesses had attested to the petitioner's presence in the agitating group, which amounted to an offence against the State punishable under Section 153A..Despite this, it was found that the government pleader had not produced any sanction granted by the State as required under Section 196 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) while taking cognizance of this offence. Additionally, the police had also not stated in the chargesheet that such sanction had been obtained. "Therefore, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is liable to be quashed for want of sanction," Justice Natarajan concluded. .Advocate Haleema Ameen represented the petitioner while Advocate BJ Rohith represented the State..[Read Order]