Karnataka HC Quashes FIR Against News Anchor Over Remarks on Prophet Muhammad [Read Order]

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a television news anchor for allegedly making remarks hurting the religious sentiments of Muslims during a panel discussion, holding that the absence of mens rea to incite a particular community, caste or religion, already found by the Court in an earlier round of litigation arising from the same broadcast, would apply equally to the offence under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Bench of Justice Ravi V Hosmani was hearing a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the anchor, who was arrayed as accused no.2 in a complaint alleging that he had made disrespectful statements about the lifestyle of the Prophet during a panel discussion aired on a news channel on 27.12.2018. The complainant alleged that the statements, made in the course of a discussion on a book relating to the Ram Mandir, hurt the religious sentiments of Muslims and sought action against the anchor as well as the channel's manager under Sections 153A, 34, 295A and 505(2) of the IPC. The FIR was registered by Tunga Nagar Police Station, Shivamogga, and was pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC-3, Shivamogga.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that an earlier complaint arising from the very same broadcast, registered by a different complainant, had already been quashed by the High Court, which had held that the anchor's statements were made in the exercise of his freedom of speech and expression and did not attract Sections 153A and 505(2) of the IPC, and that a Special Leave Petition against the said order had also been dismissed, rendering it final. It was contended that, insofar as Section 295A was concerned, the complaint did not disclose that the statements referred to any particular religion or belief, and that registration of a fresh FIR over the same incident would amount to abuse of process. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in S Khushboo v. Kanniammal, which had quashed multiple complaints filed over the same incident.

The complainant's counsel opposed the petition, submitting that the quashing of the earlier FIR would not extend to the present complaint, since it separately invoked Section 295A, and that the manner in which the statements were made showed a deliberate and malicious intention to hurt the religious sentiments of Muslims by referring to the lifestyle of the Prophet. It was argued that since the complaints were filed by different persons, there was no legal bar to multiple proceedings arising from the same broadcast. The State, represented by the Additional SPP, also opposed the petition, submitting that the complaint disclosed cognizable offences justifying registration of the FIR.

The Court noted that its earlier judgment quashing the FIR arising from the same programme had specifically held that the anchor had merely posed questions to panelists to elicit their views, without referring to any particular caste, community or religion, and that there was no mens rea to incite communal disharmony. It observed:

"It is seen, this Court has specifically held absence of mens rea to incite a particular community, caste or religion. It is observed that an omnibus statement expressing two different views to enable panelists to express their views would not be blasphemous. It is also observed that there is no reference to any particular community."

The Court held that although the earlier judgment had dealt with offences under Sections 153A and 505(2) of the IPC, the same findings would extend to the offence under Section 295A as well, since the mens rea required under that provision is, if anything, more stringent, being doubly qualified by the requirement of a deliberate and malicious intention of outraging religious feelings. Consequently, the absence of any such intention, once found by the Court, could not be revisited merely because a different provision or a different complainant was involved.

On the question of multiple complaints, the Court distinguished S Khushboo v. Kanniammal, noting that the Supreme Court had interfered in that case because the complaints were filed at multiple locations, making it inconvenient for the accused to defend herself, which was not the precise basis for relief here. It nevertheless referred to the decisions in TT Antony v. State of Kerala, Krishna Lal Chawla v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Tarak Das Mukharjee v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which had held that registration of multiple complaints over the same incident by the same complainant was impermissible.

Allowing the petition, the Court quashed the proceedings in Crime No. 12/2019 pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC-3, Shivamogga, for offences punishable under Sections 153A, 34, 295A and 505(2) of the IPC, insofar as the petitioner was concerned.

Appearances

Counsel for the Petitioner: S Sudharsan and Sainath D.M, Advocates.

Counsel for the Respondents: Surya Mukundaraj L., Additional SPP for Respondent No.1; Saddam R Mulla for Mohammed Tahir,Advocaates appearing for Respondent No.2.

Case Title: Sri Ajit Hanumakkanavar v. State of Karnataka and Anr. [Criminal Petition No. 7417 of 2019]

[Read Order]