Quashes Case Against Two Men

by

Karnataka High Court: Shouting ‘Jai Shri Ram’ Doesn’t Hurt Religious Feelings, Quashes Case Against Two Men

Bengaluru, October 17: In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case against two men accused of raising the slogan “Jai Shri Ram” inside a mosque in Dakshina Kannada district, stating that the act did not amount to outraging religious feelings.

In its order dated September 13, Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that shouting the slogan could not be seen as a deliberate attempt to insult religious sentiments. “It is un-understandable how if someone shouts ‘Jai Shri Ram’, it would outrage the religious feelings of any class,” the court remarked, emphasizing that the act had no impact on public peace or order.

Case Background

The incident occurred on September 24, 2023, when the two accused, Keerthan Kumar and Sachin Kumar, allegedly entered a mosque within the Puttur police circle jurisdiction around 11 pm and shouted the slogan. The complainant alleged that the duo threatened the community, saying, “they will not leave the community.”

Following the complaint, the police registered a case under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including:

  • Section 447 (criminal trespass)
  • Section 295A (outraging religious beliefs)
  • Section 505 (statements conducing to public mischief)
  • Section 506 (criminal intimidation)
  • Section 34 (common intention)

The complaint also highlighted that Hindus and Muslims in the area were coexisting peacefully and expressed concern that such actions could create communal discord.

Court’s Observations

The defense argued that the alleged actions did not constitute any offence under the cited IPC sections. It further contended that entry into the mosque could not be termed criminal trespass, as it is a public place open to all.

The High Court bench clarified that Section 295A only applies to “deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.” It referred to previous judgments by the Supreme Court, noting that not every action deemed offensive by someone qualifies as an offence under this section. The court emphasized that acts that do not disturb public order or peace cannot attract criminal charges.

“When the complainant himself states that Hindus and Muslims are living in harmony in the area, the incident by no stretch of imagination can result in antimony,” the court said.

Quashing the Case

After reviewing the evidence and arguments, the court concluded that the allegations failed to meet the necessary criteria for the invoked IPC sections. Accordingly, the criminal case against the two men was quashed.

This ruling reiterates the court’s stance that freedom of expression must be protected, provided it does not disturb public order or intentionally hurt religious sentiments.