KingKhanWC
Test Captain
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2010
- Runs
- 49,490
What a strange country . Obsessed with Pakistan lol
===
According to the complaint, the person allegedly insulted the complainant using communal slurs and exerted criminal force against him.
The Supreme Court has held that using terms like “Miyan-Tiyan” or “Pakistani” may be in poor taste but does not make out a criminal offence that can penalise acts intended to wound religious sentiments. The ruling came while quashing a criminal case against an 80-year-old man accused of making such remarks.
The bench further found no material to indicate that the accused had used criminal force against the complainant. (Representative file photo)
The bench further found no material to indicate that the accused had used criminal force against the complainant. (Representative file photo)
“The appellant is accused of hurting the religious feelings of the informant by calling him ‘Miyan-Tiyan’ and ‘Pakistani’. Undoubtedly, the statements made are poor taste. However, it does not amount to hurting the religious sentiments of the informant,” noted a bench comprising justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma.
The case originated from a first information report (FIR) registered as Bokaro in Jharkhand, based on a complaint by Md Shamim Uddin — an Urdu translator and acting clerk (Right to Information). According to the complaint, Hari Nandan Singh, an 80-year-old man, allegedly insulted the complainant using communal slurs and exerted criminal force against him while the latter was performing his official duties. The incident led to the registration of the case under Sections 298 (hurting religious sentiments), 504 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace), 506 (criminal intimidation), 353 (assault to deter public servant from duty), and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the IPC.
Also Read: Supreme Court quashes rape case against former army officer
Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet, and the magistrate, by an order in July 2021, took cognisance of the offences and summoned the accused. Singh then filed an application for discharge, which was partly allowed by the magistrate on March 24, 2022, discharging him of offences under Sections 323 but retaining charges under Sections 298, 353 and 504. Singh’s subsequent challenges before the Bokaro additional sessions judge and the Jharkhand high court also failed, compelling him to approach the Supreme Court.
In its judgement delivered on February 11, although released recently, the bench cited its decision in Sajjan Kumar Vs CBI (2010), which lays down principles for determining the sufficiency of material for framing charges. Applying these principles, the bench examined the FIR and observed that none of the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were met.
The court examined whether Singh’s statements were sufficient to constitute an offence under Sections 298, 504, and 353 of the IPC and ultimately found no basis for the criminal charges.
About the derogatory remarks made by Singh, the court acknowledged that the remarks were inappropriate but concluded that they did not meet the legal threshold required to establish an offence under Section 298 IPC and exonerated the accused under this provision. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), effective from July 2024, Section 298 of IPC has been replaced with Section 302.
The bench further found no material to indicate that the accused had used criminal force against the complainant in a manner that would justify a charge under Section 353 IPC, and also rejected the applicability of Section 504 IPC, noting that there was no act on Singh’s part that could have provoked a breach of peace. The court stated that mere use of derogatory words does not necessarily amount to an offence unless there is a direct and imminent threat of public disorder.
Setting aside the high court’s order, the top court allowed Singh’s appeal and exonerated him of all charges.
===
According to the complaint, the person allegedly insulted the complainant using communal slurs and exerted criminal force against him.
The Supreme Court has held that using terms like “Miyan-Tiyan” or “Pakistani” may be in poor taste but does not make out a criminal offence that can penalise acts intended to wound religious sentiments. The ruling came while quashing a criminal case against an 80-year-old man accused of making such remarks.
The bench further found no material to indicate that the accused had used criminal force against the complainant. (Representative file photo)
The bench further found no material to indicate that the accused had used criminal force against the complainant. (Representative file photo)
“The appellant is accused of hurting the religious feelings of the informant by calling him ‘Miyan-Tiyan’ and ‘Pakistani’. Undoubtedly, the statements made are poor taste. However, it does not amount to hurting the religious sentiments of the informant,” noted a bench comprising justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma.
The case originated from a first information report (FIR) registered as Bokaro in Jharkhand, based on a complaint by Md Shamim Uddin — an Urdu translator and acting clerk (Right to Information). According to the complaint, Hari Nandan Singh, an 80-year-old man, allegedly insulted the complainant using communal slurs and exerted criminal force against him while the latter was performing his official duties. The incident led to the registration of the case under Sections 298 (hurting religious sentiments), 504 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace), 506 (criminal intimidation), 353 (assault to deter public servant from duty), and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the IPC.
Also Read: Supreme Court quashes rape case against former army officer
Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet, and the magistrate, by an order in July 2021, took cognisance of the offences and summoned the accused. Singh then filed an application for discharge, which was partly allowed by the magistrate on March 24, 2022, discharging him of offences under Sections 323 but retaining charges under Sections 298, 353 and 504. Singh’s subsequent challenges before the Bokaro additional sessions judge and the Jharkhand high court also failed, compelling him to approach the Supreme Court.
In its judgement delivered on February 11, although released recently, the bench cited its decision in Sajjan Kumar Vs CBI (2010), which lays down principles for determining the sufficiency of material for framing charges. Applying these principles, the bench examined the FIR and observed that none of the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were met.
The court examined whether Singh’s statements were sufficient to constitute an offence under Sections 298, 504, and 353 of the IPC and ultimately found no basis for the criminal charges.
About the derogatory remarks made by Singh, the court acknowledged that the remarks were inappropriate but concluded that they did not meet the legal threshold required to establish an offence under Section 298 IPC and exonerated the accused under this provision. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), effective from July 2024, Section 298 of IPC has been replaced with Section 302.
The bench further found no material to indicate that the accused had used criminal force against the complainant in a manner that would justify a charge under Section 353 IPC, and also rejected the applicability of Section 504 IPC, noting that there was no act on Singh’s part that could have provoked a breach of peace. The court stated that mere use of derogatory words does not necessarily amount to an offence unless there is a direct and imminent threat of public disorder.
Setting aside the high court’s order, the top court allowed Singh’s appeal and exonerated him of all charges.
At least Pakistan knows what their priorities are and I respect them for that. Bangladeshis are Islamic but pretend to be liberal and secular.
