Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna declined to quash a 2021 FIR filed against a man arrayed as an accused for allegedly being part of a WhatsApp group in which obscene depictions of Hindu deities were circulated. The Court held that the investigation material, on its face, indicated content capable of outraging religious feelings and disturbing communal harmony, making out a prima facie case under IPC Section 295A. The petition challenging the FIR was rejected, with the Court permitting the probe to continue and directing the investigating officer to complete the investigation expeditiously, noting the FIR pertains to 2021.

Also Read: Menstrual Health Fundamental Right Under Article 21; Schools Must Provide Free Biodegradable Sanitary Napkins And Hygienic Toilets: Supreme Court

The complaint originated from the second respondent, who alleged that he had been added to a WhatsApp group through an unknown link, where obscene and offensive images depicting Hindu deities and certain political figures were repeatedly circulated. The complainant asserted that the content was deliberately intended to insult religious beliefs and outrage religious feelings, causing mental trauma and posing a threat to communal harmony.

Pursuant to the complaint, the police registered the FIR and commenced investigation, during which electronic devices were seized, screenshots were collected, and details of the WhatsApp group and its administrators were obtained. One administrator surrendered a mobile device, and the petitioner was subsequently arrested, enlarged on bail, and subjected to investigation.

The petitioner challenged the continuation of investigation primarily on the ground that prior sanction under Section 196 Cr.P.C. had not been obtained, alleged selective investigation, and contended that the statutory ingredients of Section 295A IPC were not satisfied.

The Court examined the scope of Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to offences under Section 295A IPC and recorded that “Section 196 Cr.P.C. employs the expression ‘No Court shall take cognizance’… and the statutory embargo operates only at the stage when the Court proposes to take cognizance of the offence.”

On application of Section 295A, Referring to various judgements of the Supreme Court, the Court stated that "The law as laid down by the Apex Court and that of this Court would clearly indicates that in cases where insult does not lead to disorder, if the act has the propensity to disrupt public order, it squarely falls within the scope of reasonable restriction of free speech. Therefore, in the garb of free speech anything and everything cannot be countenanced...The State has produced entire investigation material before this Court, a perusal of which contains depictions of Hindu deities in an extraordinarily obscene, demeaning and profane manner. The content is such that reproduction thereof, in a judicial order, would itself be inappropriate. Suffice it to observe that the material on its face has the tendency to outrage religious feelings and disturb communal harmony".

Referring to the precedents of Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court, the High Court observed: "Sanction is a condition precedent only when a Court takes cognizance on the final report placed by the investigating agency before the Court. Absence of sanction cannot mean that registration of crime is illegal. The provision is unequivocal...At the investigating stage, it is not known whether the material collected would ultimately warrant filing of a charge sheet or closure of proceedings. To insist upon sanction even before investigation, would be to place a cart before the horse and defeat the very object of investigation".

While dealing with the argument on mens rea, the Court stated that “whether the petitioner had requisite mens rea, the extent of his role and the liability of other administrators are all matters that fall squarely within the domain of investigation.” The Court added: "I am of the considered view that the offence under Section 295A of the IPC is met to every word of its ingredient albeit, prima facie. The matter is still at the stage of investigation. What could be the outcome of the investigation is yet to be known. Therefore, this Court cannot now interdict the investigation of an offence of such nature.”

The Court also recorded concern that “the Investigating Officer appears to have blissfully ignored to proceed uniformly against all administrators of the group”, while clarifying that “if the investigation leads to any member being actively involved… they must be brought to book.”

Also Read: Complainant’s Unwillingness To Marry Undercuts “False Promise” Rape Claim; Karnataka High Court Refuses To Interfere With Rape Acquittal

The Court directed that Therefore, finding the petition meritless, as none of the contentions advanced would hold water and finding prima facie ingredients being met of the offence under Section 295A of the IPC or even under the Act, the petition lacking in merit stands rejected. Since the crime is of the year 2021, the Investigating Officer shall now conclude the investigation as expeditiously as possible, without brooking any delay, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order. Interim order of any kind operating shall stand dissolved” and recorded that “consequently, I.A. No.2 of 2024 also stands disposed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Sri T. Ramesh, Advocate

For the Respondents: Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, Additional State Public Prosecutor, Sri Rakshith Kumar, Advocate.

Case Title: Sri Sirajuddin v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 3258 of 2024
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna