The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a First Information Report (FIR) filed in 2017 against Pramod Muthalik, the Founder-President of the fringe group Sri Ram Sene. The FIR accused Muthalik of making provocative statements during a public gathering.
A single-judge Justice Hemant Chandangoudar noted that the magistrate handling the case had taken cognizance of the complaint without obtaining prior sanction from the State government, as mandated by Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The complaint was filed by a police officer who was present at the gathering, where Muthalik was the chief guest. The gathering was organized to celebrate Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Jayanti and the inauguration of the Sri Ram Sene’s office in Babaleshwar. According to the complaint, Muthalik made divisive remarks differentiating between Hindus and Muslims based on their treatment of cows. It was further alleged that he advocated for cutting the hands of those who kill cows.
Consequently, Muthalik was charged under Sections 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on religious grounds) and 295A (insulting religious beliefs with deliberate and malicious intent) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The complaint contended that his statements were intended to incite disharmony between the two communities.
Muthalik then approached the High Court seeking the dismissal of the complaint. He argued that the magistrate’s cognizance was unlawful due to the absence of the required sanction under Section 196 of the CrPC, which pertains to prosecution for offenses against the State and criminal conspiracy to commit such offenses. He further claimed that the chargesheet lacked substance as the statements of independent witnesses were not recorded.
The prosecution, however, maintained that the chargesheet adequately demonstrated the commission of the offenses and that the magistrate had rightfully taken cognizance.
The bench examined the chargesheet and noted that aside from statements provided by police personnel, there were no recorded statements from independent eyewitnesses. Moreover, while a statement was obtained from an individual who allegedly recorded the function on video, no evidence from the video camera was presented to substantiate the allegations against Muthalik.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that Section 196 of the CrPC stipulates that no court can initiate proceedings for offenses punishable under Sections 153A and 295A of the IPC without prior sanction from the State government.
As no such sanction was granted by the State government, the Court concluded that the magistrate’s cognizance was invalid. Consequently, the Court accepted Muthalik’s plea and quashed the proceedings against him.
