The Allahabad High Court, while refusing to quash FIR against the accused, accused of hurting religious sentiments observed that it is evident from the nature of the derogatory remarks and the deliberate posting of a derogatory photo of Shivling that the applicant harboured a malicious intent to outrage the religious feelings of a particular community and this malicious intent is indicative of a deliberate attempt to inflict harm and offend the religious sensibilities of others and such actions cannot be excused as mere expressions of opinion but must be recognized for what they are: deliberate acts of religious vilification there as a deliberate attempt to insult and hurt the sentiments of a particular community.
Brief Facts:
An FIR was lodged against the accused under Sections 153-A, 295-A IPC and Section 6 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act with the allegations that he had posted derogatory remarks and deliberately shared offensive photos of Lord Shiva on a social media platform, with the explicit intention of causing hurt to the religious sentiments of another community.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that he had been falsely implicated as he had not posted the comment himself but the same was made after hacking his account. Further, it was submitted that assuming the alleged comment has been posted, still it does not constitute any offence, and is rather an innocuous statement made without intending to hurt the religious feelings of any community and the applicant has never committed any offence as alleged against him. Further submission is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the court below has utterly failed to consider that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant, and hence, all the proceedings initiated should be quashed.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent opposed the application and contended that after investigation charge sheet has been filed in this matter. Further, it was submitted that the comment of the applicant was outrageous and had hurt the religious sentiment and the court below has rightly summoned the applicant and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as the ongoing proceedings.
Observations of the court:
The Court stated that looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant and the submissions of hacking and deliberate comments made by the applicant relate to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage, it is only to be seen as to whether a prima facie case is made out or not in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
The court observed that in a democratic society, such as ours, where freedom of speech is held in high regard, it is imperative to understand that this freedom is not absolute and it comes with responsibilities, foremost among them being the obligation to respect the sentiments and beliefs of others and the misuse of freedom of speech to denigrate or insult religious beliefs undermines the very fabric of constitutionalism and fundamental human belief upon which our society is built. Further, it was stated that religious sentiment holds immense significance for citizens, and any act aimed at denigrating or disintegrating such sentiments constitutes a grave affront to the principle of tolerance and secularism. The applicant’s actions, which demonstrate a blatant disregard for religious sentiments, cannot be viewed as mere inadvertence but would be a deliberate affront to the cherished values of our pluralistic society.
The court further stated that the applicant’s conduct by posting derogatory statements is not only an affront to the religious sentiments of the affected community but also undermines the foundational principles of our democracy. By making a mockery of a community’s beliefs and comparing them to mundane objects, the accused has displayed a callous disregard for the deeply held beliefs and sentiments of millions. The applicant’s actions, which seek to mock and ridicule the religious beliefs of others, not only cause emotional distress but also undermine the foundational values of our democratic society. It is incumbent upon the judiciary to send a clear message that such conduct will not be tolerated and will be met with appropriate legal consequences.
Further, the court stated that this is not a case of hypersensitivity, but rather a matter concerning the sanctity and reverence attached to religious symbols by individuals who hold them divine. While some may perceive the Shivling as an object of religious significance, for many, it embodies profound spiritual and cultural significance. Hence, it is not the reaction of a hypersensitive individual that is at stake here, but the impact on those who genuinely hold the Shivling sacrosanct and are deeply affected by the derogatory social media posts and comments. In a society that values religious pluralism and mutual respect, it is incumbent upon individuals to exercise prudence and refrain from actions that may cause unwarranted offence or hurt the sentiments of others, particularly in matters as sensitive as religious beliefs and practices.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Owais Khan vs State of U.P and Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar
Case No.: APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10302 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Surya Shanker Pandey, Vivek Saran
Advocate for the Respondent: G.A.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
