MAHAMMED HANIF vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58498
CRL.P No. 671 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010208282020





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.671 OF 2021


BETWEEN:

1. MAHAMMED HANIF
S/O HAJI MOIDEEN
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT 2-43A/9,
2ND BLOCK, KATIPALLA HOUSE
MANGALORE D.K.-575030.

2. MOIDIN
S/O MUHAMMED
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT 2-58, INDIRA NAGAR
HELEYANGADY
MANGALORE, D.K.-574146.

3. ABBUBAKKAR
S/O B. HAMMABBA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT 6-135 J/A
SITE NO.236, AROOBA ENCLAVE
6TH BLOCK, KRISHNAPURA
SURATHKAL, MANGALORE
D.K.-575014.

4. SHAHUL HAMEED
S/O BAVA BYARI
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT # 14/48, MADDA HOUSE








Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58498
CRL.P No. 671 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010208282020


B MOODA BANTWAL
JODUMARGA
DK-574219.

5. YASEER ARAFAT
S/O HASANABBA K
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT # 20.2-141/76,
FLAT NO 802/A, 4TH FLOOR
NALAPAD KUNIL TOWER
NELLIKARYI ROAD
KASABA BAZAR,
MANGALORE-575013.

6. K.M. SIRAJUDDIN
S/O K. MAYYADDI
DOOR NO 2-103-34(2)
GANDHI NAGAR POST
KAVOOR
MANGALORE-575015.

7. MOHAMMED IQBAL
S/O V. ABDUL KADAR
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT # 7-562,
KASBA BAZAR, BUNDER,
MANGALORE D.K.575001.

8. MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
S/O ISMAIL
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT # 196-84/14,
ISMAIL MASTER COMPOUND
MASTIKATTE ULLAR
D.K.575020.

9. ABDUL KADAR
S/O UNCHI BYARI
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT # 2-141/8, FLAT NO.206

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58498
CRL.P No. 671 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010208282020


MALAOAD KUNIL TOWER BLOCK
NELLIKAI ROAD,
PANDESHWARA POST
DK-575001.

10. ABDUL RAZAK
S/O MARPU BYARI
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT # 4-19,
TENKAYADAPADU
MANGALORE, DK-575020.

11. ABDUL HAKEEM
S/O P.S. MOIDEEN KUNCHI
AGED ABOUT 29 YEAR
R/AT # 1-44,
POOMAN HOUSE
NEAR FALHAL SCHOOL
KC NAGAR TALAPADY
DK-575023.

12. MOHAMMED SEENAN
S/O MOOSA KUNCHI
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT # 18-34/10,
DHARMANAGAR BOTTU ULLAL
MASTIKATTE ULLAL,
MANGALORE, DK-575020.

13. ABBOBAKKAR SIDDIK
S/O U.B. ALIYABBA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT # 18-34/21(2)
ASMA MANZIL
BAIL BOTTU ULLAL
MANGALORE, DK-575020.
…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. ISMAIL MUNEEB MUSBA, ADVOCATE)

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58498
CRL.P No. 671 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010208282020


AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH MANGALORE PS
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560001.

2. SEETHARAMA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT MANGALORE SOUTH PS
PANDESHWAR
MANGALORE CITY
D.K.-575001.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SUHAS GOWDA M., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 16.11.2019 IN
CR.NO.222/2019 AND COMPLAINT REGISTERED BY THE
RESPONDENT POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR ALLEGED
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3 OF KARNATAKA
OPEN PLACE DISFIGUREMENT ACT, 1951 AND SECTIONS 153A,
295A AND 120B OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C.-II
COURT, MANGALORE CITY, D.K., PRODUCED HERETO AS
ANNEXURE-A.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned High
Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58498
CRL.P No. 671 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010208282020


2. The prayer is sought before this Court to quash FIR
in Crime No.222/2019 registered against the petitioners under
Sections 153A, 295A and 120B of Indian Penal Code and
Section 3 of Karnataka Open Place Disfigurement Act, 1951 and
1981.
3. The FIR is registered based on the complaint lodged
by Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Mangalore South Police
Station, Pandeshwar, Mangalore, wherein in the complaint-
Annexure-B, it is stated that judgment delivered by the Apex
Court is denial of justice and raise the voice for justice and it is
also mentioned that it is from ‘Popular front of India’ and the
same slogans were found in the walls by the side of the road.
Hence, invoked the above offences and registered the case.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
submit that very registration of case against the petitioners is
an error and complaint does not disclose any offence for
invoking the offence under Sections 153A and 295A and even
there is no conspiracy to invoke Section 120B of IPC. The
counsel also would contend that under Article 19 of Constitution
of India, all citizens have right to ‘freedom of speech’ and when

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58498
CRL.P No. 671 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010208282020


the judgment was delivered, the said slogan was found in the
walls by the side of the road, but that does not amount to
sedition for invoking the offence under Section 295A and this
Court has to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in
support of his argument relied upon recent judgment of the
Apex Court in JAVED AHMAD HAJAM vs. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER reported in (2024) 4 SCC
156 and in this judgment, the Apex Court discussed scope of
Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India and right to lead
dignified life under article 21 and cautioned however, the
protest or dissent must be within fours of modes permissible in
a democracy. The said right is subject to reasonable restrictions
imposed in accordance with Article 19(2). The counsel also
brought to notice of this Court when the discussion was made
with regard to Section 153-A, offence of sedition, Test is of
general impact of words or expressions on significant number
of reasonable people, right to dissent against Government
decisions in lawful manner forms part of democracy and is
protected under Article 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution and

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58498
CRL.P No. 671 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010208282020


also the Court has to take note of intention and essential
ingredient of offence under Section 153A. The counsel also
brought to notice of this Court when the FIR is registered, the
Apex Court has stated that police must be sensitized in
democratic values enshrined in the Constitution, including the
right to dissent against and criticize Government decisions
when done in a lawful manner.
6. The counsel also relied upon judgments of the Apex
Court in BILAL AHMED KALOO vs. STATE OF A.P. reported
in (1997) 7 SCC 431, MANZAR SAYEED KHAN vs. STATE
OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER reported in (2007) 5
SCC 1 and order passed by this Court in MAHABOOB GHOUSE
AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF YADGIRI TOWN POLICE in
W.P.NOS.19700-19715/2015 dated 06.12.2018 , order
passed by this Court in SRI AJIT HANUMAKKANAVAR vs.
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER in
CRL.P.NO.6/2019 dated 24.01.2019, so also order passed
by this Court in SRI K.N. SHAILESH HOLLA vs. THE STATE
OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER in W.P.NO.24900/2018
dated 27.01.2020 and order passed in MOHAMMED

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58498
CRL.P No. 671 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010208282020


ATAULLA A AND OTHERS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
in CRL.P.NO.3768/2020 dated 05.10.2020. The counsel also
relied upon order passed by this Court in SUNIL VALYAPURE
vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA in CRL.P.NO.201377/2016
dated 06.01.2017. The counsel relying upon these judgments
would vehemently contend that the case on hand will not
attract Section 153A of IPC and so also Section 295A of IPC.
7. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing
for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would submit that immediately
after pronouncement of judgment by the Apex Court, these
petitioners have reacted and posted the posters that too in a
public place which leads to creating disharmony in the Country.
Hence, it attracts Sections 153A and 295A of IPC. Therefore, it
does not require any interference.
8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for
petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, the Court has to take
note of contents of the complaint while exercising the power
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Having perused the contents of
complaint, it is very clear that, suo motu, complaint is

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58498
CRL.P No. 671 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010208282020


registered by police and complaint is given by the Station
House Officer with the ACP of Mangalore South. Having perused
the contents of complaint also, when the judgment was
delivered by the Apex Court, it is stated that it is denial of
justice and raise the voice against judgment and when such
posters are found in a public place, case was registered.
9. Having considered the same, it appears that a voice
is raised with regard to judgment of the Apex Court, that too,
word used is only denial of justice and raise the voice for
justice. When such being the case, it will not attract ingredients
of offence under Sections 153A and 295A of IPC, the Court has
to take note of discussion made by the Apex Court in the
judgment. The Apex Court in the recent judgment in Javed
Ahmad Hajam’s case and also considering the principles laid
down in the judgment particularly, in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo ’s
case, discussion was made with regard to Section 153A and
also the ingredients of offences. Though the said slogans are
against dissatisfaction of the judgment of the Apex Court, while
invoking Section 153A, there must be ingredient of sedition
against the State.

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58498
CRL.P No. 671 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010208282020


10. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court,
discussion made in paragraph No. 15 of judgment in Javed
Ahmad Hajam’s case, wherein also taken note of possibility of
stirring up the emotions of a group of people cannot be ruled
out. The appellant’s college teachers, students, and parents
were allegedly members of the WhatsApp group and the same
is also taken note of. The people of our country know the
importance of democratic values. Therefore, it is not possible to
conclude that the words will promote disharmony or feelings of
enmity, hatred or ill will between different religion groups and
so also, discussed in detail with regard to the test is of the
general impact of the utterances on reasonable people who are
significant in numbers. Merely because a few individuals may
develop hatred or ill will, it will not be sufficient to attract
clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 153-A IPC.
11. Having considered the discussion made in detail by
the Apex Court and the principles laid down, it is a fit case to
exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the
proceedings, as the same is dissent about the judgment and
the same is not in the term of creating disharmony and only it

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58498
CRL.P No. 671 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010208282020


is stated that justice is denied and raise voice and the same is
within the scope of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of
India.
12. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER

(i) The criminal petition is allowed.
(ii) The FIR in Crime No.222/2019 registered against
the petitioners under Sections 153A, 295A and
120B of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of
Karnataka Open Place Disfigurement Act, 1951 and
1981, is hereby quashed.


Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE


ST
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27