LAWS(SC)-2006-8-27

STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. PASTOR P RAJU

Decided On August 04, 2006
STATE OF KARNATAKA Appellant
V/S
PASTOR P.RAJU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.2.2005 of Karnataka High Court by which initiation of criminal proceedings against the respondent under Section 153-B, IPC were quashed in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C.

(3.) One R.N. Lokesha son of R.S. Narayanappa resident of Ramapura, Channapatna, lodged an FIR alleging that at about 7.30 p.m. on 14.1.2005, he along with some other persons was celebrating Sankranthi festival when the respondent Pastor P. Raju, who is a member of Christian community, came there and made an appeal to them to get converted to Christian religion where they would get many benefits and facilities which were not available to them in Hindu religion to which they belong. It is also alleged that many persons who were present there resented the appeal made by the respondent and strongly opposed the plea or assertion for their conversion from Hindu religion to Christian religion. On the basis of the FIR, a case as Crime No.8 of 2005 was registered under Section 153-B, IPC at the concerned police station. The respondent was arrested on 15.1.2005 and was produced before a Magistrate on the same day who remanded him to judicial custody as no application for bail had been filed. Subsequently, a bail application was moved under Section 436, Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate which was rejected on the ground that the offence under Section 153-B, IPC being a non-bailable offence, the power under the aforesaid provision could not be exercised as the said provision empowered the Court to grant bail in bailable offences only. The respondent filed a petition under Section482, Cr.P.C. on 27.1.2005 for quashing of the proceedings initiated against him under Section 153-B, IPC in Case Crime No. 8 of 2005. This petition was allowed by the High Court by the order under challenge and the entire proceedings initiated against the respondent were quashed.