ORDER
Bhawani Singh, J.
1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Acharya Rajneesh of Bombay, challenges the issuance of notice dated 4-2-1986 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, under Sections 295-A and 298 of the Penal Code in a complaint moved by complainant Naval Thakur under Sections 292, 293, 295-A of the Penal Code.
2. The essential facts, giving rise to this petition, are that the complainant, a resident of village Badah in Tehsil Kullu, moved a complaint against the petitioner alleging that he has been closely associated with certain Yogic Asthanas and Yoga Ashram under the guidance of Acharya Prakash Dev. Further, he stated that he has been associated with the Mahabudhi Society of India, New Delhi, and has been engaged in meditating and practically practising the Yogic Ashnas preached by the saints and seers of India. He was greatly influenced by the teachings of Swami Vivekananda and others to the world.
3. The further allegation is that the complainant visited Span Motel on 11-12-1985 at the residence of the petitioner on his birthday and the complainant, after having been shown by the police, sat there to watch him. The complainant sought an interview with the petitioner through his Private Secretary to find out the truth of the teachings of the petitioner but he was not given any appointment, although the Secretary of the petitioner had promised him to do so. It is also stated that a poster was distributed which advocated free sex and carefree life and enjoyment in the present world. Besides, the petitioner has published a book entitled 'From Sex to Super Consciousness' in which he has strenuously stressed for sex to Samadhi and from Lust to Lord and from Kama to Rama. The petitioner, according to the complainant, has made slanderous attacks on the saints and seers of India. This book, he says, goes against the teachings and preachings of the Hindu scriptures, thus injuring the feelings of the complainant seriously. This book, he further says, is an obscene book and is available in the Government District Library at Kullu, which should have been banned and forfeited to the State Government since it not only injures the feelings of the people of Himachal Pradesh but also of the humanity at large. The complainant further alleges that the whole of Himachal Pradesh has been the abode of Rishis and Munnis and gods and goddesses but the petitioner, surrounded by moneyed people, will not only defile the poor Himachalis and lead them astray but also affect their plain and pure vision about the blessings of Lord Ramakrishna Paramhansa, who kindled the flames of spirituality throughout the world and by these teachings, the accused-petitioner will tarnish the whole image of spirituality and bring ruination to peace, serenity and calmness of the people in the area for all times to come. The complainant has placed, during his preliminary examination, pamphlet (Ex. P. 1) and book 'From Sex to Super Consciousness' and a copy of the Weekly with interview of the petitioner, Dharamayuga (Ex. P. 2), which hit his religious sentiments. On the basis of the complaint and these documents, the trying Judge has issued notice to the petitioner on 4-2-1986 for offences under Sections 295-A and 298 of the Penal Code.
4. The petitioner has admitted his presence in Himachal Pradesh at Manali for 3 to 4 weeks for health reasons but has denied having given any speech or published or circulated any book or pamphlet at Kullu or Manali during this time. He asserts that during his life, he has his own views and beliefs. After passing through various phases in life, he is devoted to spiritual work, touring extensively, organising meditation camps, giving lectures, writing books of spiritual matters, meeting his followers-mostly intellectuals. His devotees have been picking up what they understood from his speeches and lectured, and tape recording the same and preparing audio cassettes freely and openly. None of his lectures and books have ever been branned by the Government since they convey the views, sentiments and beliefs of the petitioner and causing prejudice to none.
5. The petitioner also alleges that the poster, offending to the petitioner, has not been written by him; rather it is done by someone else. The petitioner has, therefore, no concern with its creation, publication and distribution, as alleged, and the book 'From Sex to Super Consciousness' has also not been published by the petitioner. However, a reference to the same does not in any way cause prejudice to anyone and the assertion of the complainant about this book, as alleged, is thoroughly inapt, inaccurate and far from the meaningful and factual accuracy of real life. The very fact that the book is available in Libraries and everywhere, shows that it does not have the consequences the complainant contemplates. Otherwise, the same could have been proscribed. All other allegations have been categorically repudiated being incoherent, vague and lacking in particulars. It has also been stated that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the matter and issued notice to the petitioner without applying his mind judicially to the facts and circumstances before him.
6. Shri K.L. Arora, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has confined his submissions to the maintainability and continuance of the complaint before the court concerned. It is submitted that continuance of the complaint is an abuse of the process of the court since it is not at all maintainable on facts as well as on law. Before I deal with these submissions of Shri K.L. Arora, it is appropriate to refer Sections 295-A and 298 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
'295-A. Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or at-tempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.'
XX XX XX'298. Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings.-- Whoever, with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person or makes any gesture in the sight of that person or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.'
'196. Prosecution for offences against the State and for criminal conspiracy to commit such offence.--
(1) No court shall take cognizance of--
(a) Any offence punishable under Chap. VI or under Section 153-A, Section 295-A or Sub-section (1) of Section 505 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
(b) a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, or
(c) any such abetment, as is described in Section 108-A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government.
(1-A) No Court shall take cognizance of--
(a) any offence punishable under Section 153-B or Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (3) of Section 505 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), or
(b) a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence,
Except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government or of the District Magistrate.
(2) No Court shall take cognizance of the offence of any criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, unless the State Government or the District Magistrate has consented in writing to the initiation of the proceedings :
Provided that where the criminal conspiracy is one to which the provisions of Section 195 apply, no such consent shall be necessary.
(3) The Central Government or the State Government may, before according sanction under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (1-A) and the District Magistrate may before according sanction under Sub-section (1-A) and the State Government or the District Magistrate may, before giving consent under Sub-section (2), order a preliminary investigation by a police officer not being below the rank of Inspector, in which case such police officer shall have the powers referred to in subsection (3) of Section 155.'
7. Section 295-A of the Penal Code has been intended to respect the religious susceptibilities of persons of different religious persuations or creeds. Courts have got to be ,very cautious in such matters and to pay due regard to the feelings and religious emotions of different classes of persons with different beliefs, irrespective of the consideration whether or not they share those beliefs, or whether they are rational or otherwise in the opinion of the Court (see 1962 (2) Cri LJ 564, State of Mysore v. Henry Rodrigues). The important ingredient of this provision brought into existence by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1927 is that the intention of the accused in outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, should be deliberate and malicious. Simple and innocent expression of opinion, may be an outbrust while making a speech, will not bring the act within the parameters of this provision. The Court has to examine and understand the matter from all the facts and circumstances brought before it.
8. This offence is of serious nature. Therefore, rightly, Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires prior sanction of the Government to institute such like proceedings. In view of this provision (S. 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), it can very safely be said that prior sanction by the Government is a sine qua non for initiating proceedings under Section 295-A of the Penal Code and failure to do so means that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain and continue with such proceedings. Such a situation arose before the High Court of Gujarat in 1981 Cri LJ 113 (Shalibhadra Shah v. Swami Krishna Bharati) wherein A.M. Ahmadi, J. (as he then was) dealt with the matter quite comprehensively and exhaustively and came to the conclusion that prior sanction for initiating a complaint under Section 295-A of the Penal Code is a mandatory requirement. I, respectfully, accept the reasons of the learned Judge in this case and seek assistance to arrive at the same conclusion in this matter and hold that in the absence of sanction, the complaint is not maintainable and the court has no jurisdiction to entertain and proceed with the same.
9. Adverting to Section 298 of the Penal Code, the requirement is that the accused utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person or makes any gesture in the sight of that person or places any object in the sight of that person intentionally and deliberately to wound the religious feelings of that person. This Section does not speak anything about the writings in the form of Annexures P-1 and P-2 and the alleged interview to the Weekly Dharamayuga. The complainant has neither set up this case in accordance with law nor led any evidence at the preliminary stage. There is no evidence that these writings were written in the presence of the complainant or were uttered in his presence. Here also the principles laid down in the Gujarat case (1981 Cri LJ 113) (supra) apply with full force. The result is that no case under either of these provisions is made out against the petitioner.
10. Now, the question is whether this Court has jurisdiction in such like cases to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quash the proceedings. The answer is in the affirmative, in case the matter comes within the parameters laid down by the apex Court in this regard. The basic case that appears to be relevant is AIR 1960 SC 866 : (1960 Cri LJ 1239) (R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab) wherein the apex Court, without being exhaustive to the principles which may come in aid of the court for examining cases for quashing such proceedings, laid down guidelines and two such are : where the allegations do not constitute the offence alleged and where there is legal bar against the institution of the Criminal proceedings in respect of the offence alleged; there may not be the requisite sanction.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, these principles apply in the present case and it can be termed, without any iota of doubt, that the present prosecution of the petitioner is not only illegal for want of sanction but also constitutes no offence worth prosecution. It can be said that it is a lame prosecution and the continuance of the same amounts to gross abuse of the process of the court and there is little doubt that this Court can quash such like prosecution under Section 482 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure.
12. In AIR 1977 SC 1489 : (1977 Cri LJ 1125) (State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy), while dealing with Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, corresponding to Section 482 of the New Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court observed as under:......In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.......'
13. Further, in AIR 1977 SC 1754 : (1977 Cri LJ 1146) (Dr. Sharda Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar), P. N. Bhagwati, J. (as he then was), speaking for the Court, said in para 2 thereof as under:
'2. It is now settled law that where the allegations set out in the complaint or the charge-sheet do not constitute any offence. it is competent to the High Court exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence.....'
14. In view of the aforesaid conclusions, the submission made by Shri Dharamveer Sharma that this Court may not interfere in the matter at this stage and allow the case to proceed against the petitioner even if he happens to be a person with a large following, is untenable. No other point was argued by the learned Counsel for the complainant.
15. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that there is merit in this petition and the interest of justice requires that the proceedings pending in the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, in private complaint No. 2-1/86, instituted on 2-1-1986, are quashed which I accordingly do by allowing this petition.