Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR: Shouting ‘Jai Sriram’ Inside Mosque Doesn’t Outrage Religious Feelings

In a landmark judgment, the Karnataka High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against two men accused of shouting the slogan ‘Jai Sriram’ inside a mosque. The case, which had led to allegations of outraging religious feelingsunder Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), was dismissed after the Court found no substantial evidence to suggest that the accused’s actions were intended to disrupt public order or hurt religious sentiments. This decision has brought attention to the scope of Section 295A and its applicability in cases involving religious sentiments.

The two petitioners, Keerthan Kumar and another, were accused of trespassing into a mosque, shouting the religious slogan ‘Jai Sriram,’ and threatening the community. As a result, they were charged with multiple sections under the IPC, including Section 295A, Section 447 (criminal trespass), Section 505 (statements leading to public mischief), Section 506 (criminal intimidation), and Section 34 (common intention). However, the Karnataka High Court, after hearing both sides, quashed the case, citing the lack of necessary ingredients to support the charges.

Key Observations by the Court

1. Section 295A (Outraging Religious Feelings):
   • The High Court analyzed the scope of Section 295A, which pertains to deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
   • The Court observed, “It is ununderstandable as to how if someone shouts ‘Jai Sriram’ it would outrage the religious feeling of any class.” The Court further emphasized that the complainant himself had acknowledged that Hindus and Muslims in the area lived harmoniously, further weakening the case for religious outrage.
   • The Court cited Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar (2017), a Supreme Court ruling that clarified not every act can lead to an offence under Section 295A unless it directly affects public peace or public order.
2. Section 447 (Criminal Trespass):
   • The Court pointed out that the mosque is a public place, and therefore, entry into it cannot be interpreted as criminal trespass. There was no evidence to prove that the petitioners had violated any law by entering the premises.
3. Section 505 (Public Mischief):
   • According to the High Court, the petition did not establish that the actions of the accused led to any public mischief or created a rift between communities. The alleged shouting of the slogan did not disrupt public harmony, which is a key element in proving public mischief under Section 505.
4. Section 506 (Criminal Intimidation):
   • Regarding the charge of criminal intimidation, the Court noted that the complainant had not personally seen the individuals committing the act, thus nullifying the allegations. Without direct evidence, the Section 506charge was deemed unsubstantiated.
5. Abuse of Legal Process:
   • The Court ruled that allowing the case to proceed based on the allegations would result in an abuse of the legal process. The Court remarked, “Finding no ingredients of any of the offences so alleged, permitting further proceedings against these petitioners would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.”

Background of the Case

• The case originated on September 24, 2023, when two unknown individuals allegedly entered a mosque and shouted the slogan ‘Jai Sriram’ at around 10:50 p.m.
• The complaint also stated that these individuals threatened the mosque community, saying they would not leave the area.
• Based on these allegations, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered, and the two accused were charged with criminal offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• The petitioners later approached the Karnataka High Court, seeking to quash the FIR.
• During the investigation, the complainant initially mentioned that Hindu and Muslim communities were living in harmony, raising doubts about the accused’s intent to disrupt peace.
• The petitioners’ defense argued that there was no evidence proving their actions were a deliberate attempt to cause religious outrage or public harm.

Court’s Decision

• The Karnataka High Court determined that the allegations did not meet the necessary legal criteria to support the charges.
• The Court clarified that shouting the slogan ‘Jai Sriram’ in a public place, including inside a mosque, could not reasonably be classified as criminal trespass or religious outrage.
• The decision was based on the lack of evidence showing any disruption to public order.
• The Court concluded that proceeding with the case would result in a miscarriage of justice.
• As a result, the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings and allowed the petitioners’ plea.
• This ruling has brought attention to the interpretation of Section 295A of the IPC in cases involving religious sentiments.

Click to read: Keerthan Kumar & Anr AND State of Karnataka, WRIT PETITION NO. 25591 OF 2023