Karnataka HC Quashes Case Against Man Accused Of ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ Slogan At BJP Protest, Citing Two-Year Delay And No Section 505 Sanction

The second respondent lodged a complaint alleging that, during a protest in Mandya on 18 December 2022, the petitioner and others raised the slogan “Pakistan Zindabad.” The police registered Crime No. 30/2024 under Sections 153B and 505(1)(b) of the IPC, and proceedings were initiated in C.C. No. 712/2024.

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings and the cognizance order, contending that the slogan was raised unintentionally and that the prosecution was an abuse of process. The State opposed the petition, relying on a video clip and the charge-sheet allegation that the slogan was raised to create unrest. The complainant, though served, did not appear.

The Court considered Sections 153B and 505(1)(b) of the IPC and the sanction requirement in Section 196(1A) of the CrPC for prosecuting an offence under Section 505 IPC.

It relied on K. M. Basha alias Mehaboob Basha v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Petition No. 201668/2022, for the proposition that prior sanction is necessary before initiating action for an offence under Section 505 IPC.

The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the CrPC, invoking the Court’s power to quash proceedings where their continuation would amount to an abuse of process.

The Court considered the petitioner’s explanation that the slogan was uttered inadvertently in the course of a political protest, and observed that it was highly improbable that participants in a BJP-organised demonstration would intentionally raise “Pakistan Zindabad”.

It also noted that the complaint was based on a video published on YouTube and was lodged about two years after the incident; the investigation had not established who participated or what consequences the slogan caused, including any resulting unrest.

The Court concluded that the ingredients of Section 153 were not attracted and that the required prior sanction for the Section 505 offence had not been obtained before cognizance was taken.

It therefore found continuation of the prosecution unnecessary and an abuse of process.