The Uttarakhand High Court in the case Brajesh v. State of Uttarakhand observed and has held that the offences which outrage the religious sentiments of communities and have the tendency to affect ‘secular fabric’ of the country, the same cannot be compounded.
The Single judge bench headed by Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma in the case observed and has rejected to compound an offence as it is stated under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
In the present case, the complaint was being registered against the petitioner, wherein he claims to be the Deputy District Secretary of Rashtriya Hindu Vahini, Udham Singh Nagar and he being the accused of using derogatory words for another religion and he has also posted the same on his WhatsApp status. Thus, the petitioner in the case approach the High Court in order to quash the case which is pending on the ground of amicable settlement.
It has also been observed by the court that before using of the inherent power as stated under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the same must be conscious as to whether the said offence has the wide social impact. The court in the case also noted that the offences punishable as stated under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and has the tendency to affect the ‘secular fabric’ of the country and therefore, the same cannot be compounded as stated under section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
The court opined while stressing on the words deliberate and malicious as stated under section 295A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The court stated that Deliberate means, it being the conscious act, being made by the person which belongs to a particular community to outrage the respect, which is enjoyed by other religion in this country.
Further, the court observed that if it being a citizen under Article 5 of the Constitution of India and if the person does not carry respect for other religion, the same may lead to a certain catastrophic situation which at time becomes uncontrollable by the administration and are particularly being so called constructed religious groups of the said country.
Accordingly, the court rejected for quashing the pending complaint by compounding the case.
The counsel, Advocate Mr. Harshpal Sekhon appeared for the petitioner.
The counsel, Advocates Mr. Amit Bhatt, Dy. Advocate General for the State; Mr. Jasmeet Sahota represented the Respondent.
