The court said that acts that do not disturb peace or law and order do not constitute the offense of outraging religious sentiments in this case.
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday dismissed criminal proceedings against two men accused of insulting religious sentiments in a mosque, ruling that shouting “Jai Shri Ram” inside the mosque did not “outrage the religious feelings of any class.”
Justice M Nagaprasanna passed an order on September 13 September 13, quashing criminal proceedings against Keerthan Kumar and Sachin Kumar from Dakshin Kannada district.
In the chargesheet filed on February 23, February 23, 2023, the police charged the two men under sections of the Indian Penal Code about hurting religious sentiments (295A), criminal trespass, and criminal intimidation based on a complaint that the persons had allegedly entered a local mosque one night in September 2023 and shouted “Jai Shri Ram.”
“Jai Shri Ram” is a Hindu religious phrase Hindutva groups have adopted as a political slogan.
The High Court observed that Section 295A refers to “deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting” its religion or religious beliefs.
The court said it could not fathom how shouting ‘Jai Sri Ram’ could outrage the religious feelings of any class.
It said that since the complainant himself had stated that Hindus and Muslims were living in harmony in the area, the incident could not have led to animosity between them.
Counsel for the two men pointed out that a mosque is a public place, and thus, a case of criminal trespass existed in this case. Shouting “Jai Shri Ram” did not contravene Section 295A.
The Karnataka government opposed the argument, alleging that further investigation was needed. However, the court held that the alleged offense did not adversely affect public order.
“The apex court holds that any and every act will not become an offense under Section 295A of the IPC,” the court said. “The acts that do not affect bringing out peace or destruction of public order will not lead to an offense under Section 295A of the IPC.”
The court added that having found “no ingredients” of any alleged offenses, allowing further proceedings against the accused would be “an abuse of the process of law and result in a miscarriage of justice.”
