The recent decision by the Karnataka High Court involved the quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) filed in 2017 against Pramod Muthalik, the Founder-President of the fringe group Sri Ram Sene. The FIR was registered based on allegations that Muthalik made provocative statements during a public gathering.
Justice Hemant Chandangoudar, who presided over the case, noted that the magistrate who took cognizance of the offense had done so without prior sanction from the State government, as required under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The complaint against Muthalik was filed by a police officer who was present at the gathering where Muthalik was the chief guest. The event was organized to celebrate Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Jayanti and the inauguration of Sri Ram Sene's office in Babaleshwar.
According to the complaint, Muthalik made remarks that drew a distinction between Hindus and Muslims based on their treatment of cows. He was also alleged to have commented that the hands of those who kill cows should be cut off. The complaint further claimed that Muthalik intended to provoke the gathering and create disharmony between the two communities.
Based on these allegations, a complaint was registered against Muthalik under Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deal with promoting enmity between different groups on religious grounds and deliberately insulting religious beliefs, respectively.
Muthalik approached the High Court to quash the complaint, arguing that the magistrate's cognizance of the offense was unlawful without the required sanction specified under Section 196 of the CrPC. He also highlighted that the chargesheet lacked substance as it relied solely on statements from police witnesses and did not include statements from independent witnesses.
On the other hand, the prosecution contended that the chargesheet adequately demonstrated the commission of the offenses and that the magistrate had rightly taken cognizance.
The High Court examined the chargesheet and noted that apart from statements provided by police personnel, there were no recorded statements from independent eyewitnesses. Additionally, although a statement was obtained from an individual who allegedly recorded the function on video, no evidence from the video camera was presented to substantiate the allegations against Muthalik.
The Court emphasized that Section 196 of the CrPC explicitly states that no court can initiate proceedings for offenses punishable under Section 153A and Section 295A of the IPC without prior sanction from the State government.
Since there was no such sanction obtained in this case, the Court concluded that the magistrate's cognizance of the offense was without lawful authority. Consequently, the Court granted Muthalik's plea and quashed the proceedings against him.
Muthalik was represented by Advocate Kadloor Satyanarayanacharya, while the State was represented by High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) Gururaj V Hasilkar.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: Keywords: Karnataka High Court quashed First Information Report (FIR) Pramod Muthalik Founder-President Sri Ram Sene provocative statements public gathering Justice Hemant Chandangoudar magistrate cognisance Section 196 Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) complaint police officer Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Jayanti Sri Ram Sene's office Babaleshwar Hindus Muslims cows Section 153A Section 295A Indian Penal Code (IPC) disharmony High Court plea quash prosecution chargesheet police witnesses independent witnesses video camera sanction State government Advocate Kadloor Satyanarayanacharya High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) Gururaj V Hasilkar.
