MOHAMMED ATAULLA A. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the FIR registered against the petitioners under sections 341 , 504 , 506 , 153A r/w 149 IPC .

(2.) FIR in the instant case is registered based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent. In the complaint, it is alleged that on 17.02.2010, at about 3.20 p.m., while the complainant was standing by the side of the road to cross the road, around 200-250 people came in procession and threatened the people not to cross the road and thereafter abused the complainant in vulgar language and threatened him that if he dared to cross the road, he will not reach home. It is further alleged therein that the mob was behaving in such a manner that by their Unit march, the Hindus should get frightened and on seeing the muslims, they should flee from village. In the complaint, the petitioners have been specifically named and accordingly, FIR is registered against the petitioners under sections 341 , 504 , 506 , 153A r/w 149 IPC .

(3.) Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BILAL AHMED KALOO v. STATE OF A.P ., AIR 1997 SC 3483, MANZAR SAYEED KHAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER , (2007) 5 SCC 1 and a decision of this Court in W.P.No.24900/2018 dated 27.01.2020, Crl.P.No.3916/2018 dated 17.02.2020, W.P.Nos.19700- 19715/2015 dated 06.12.2018, learned counsel for petitioners emphasized that the allegations made in the petition even if accepted on their face value do not constitute the ingredients of any of the offences alleged in the FIR. There are no allegations in the complaint that the petitioners had acted with an intention to promote feeling of ill-will and hatred between religions and communities, rather, the allegations made in the complaint go to show that it was the imagination of the complainant that the mob was behaving in a manner to create panic and hatred among Hindu groups. This allegation does not satisfy the ingredients of section 153A IPC and therefore, the initiation of criminal action against the petitioners being wholly illegal and baseless and an abuse of process of the court is liable to be quashed.