The Bombay High Court has refused to quash an FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings against a printing press owner and his employee for allegedly printing and displaying a flex banner condemning the 2023 killings of gangster-politician Atiq Ahmed and his brother Ashraf Ahmed.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Neeraj P Dhote held that a prima facie case was made out as the banner contained abusive remarks directed at a particular religion, attracting offences relating to promoting enmity between communities and outraging religious sentiments.
Sitting at the Aurangabad Bench of the High Court, Justice Dhote held that a plain reading of the banner showed that it not only criticised the killings of Atiq Ahmed and Ashraf Ahmed in police custody in Uttar Pradesh but also contained abusive language directed at a specific religious community. At the stage of considering a petition for quashing criminal proceedings, the Court found sufficient material to justify the continuation of the prosecution.
According to the prosecution, a 15×10-foot coloured flex banner was displayed at Dr Ambedkar Square in Majalgaon, Maharashtra, following the April 2023 killings of Atiq Ahmed and Ashraf Ahmed. The prosecution alleged that while the banner condemned the killings, it also used offensive and abusive language against the Hindu community and contained statements capable of promoting hatred, communal disharmony and ill-will between different religious groups.
Based on the allegations, police registered an FIR against the accused under Sections 153A, 188, 294, 295A, 298 and 505(2), read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. These provisions deal with offences relating to promoting enmity between different groups on religious grounds, disobedience of a lawful order issued by a public servant, obscene acts and expressions, deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings, uttering words with the intention of wounding religious sentiments, and making statements likely to create hatred or ill-will between communities.
During the investigation, it emerged that applicant Shaikh Wajed had printed the banner at his printing press, while co-applicant Shaikh Nasir had pasted and displayed it at the public square.
Seeking quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings, the applicants contended that they had merely carried out the instructions of two other co-accused and had no role in drafting or approving the contents of the banner. They argued that merely printing and displaying the material did not constitute the offences alleged against them.
The applicants relied on the Supreme Court’s judgments in Javed Ahmad Hajam vs State of Maharashtra and Imran Pratapgarhi vs State of Gujarat, submitting that even if the prosecution case was accepted in its entirety, the essential ingredients of the offences invoked were not made out.
Opposing the petition, the State submitted that the language used in the banner was clearly directed against a particular religion and was sufficient to attract the offences relating to promoting communal disharmony and hurting religious sentiments. It further argued that the applicants knowingly printed and displayed the banner and could not escape criminal liability by claiming that they had merely acted on the instructions of others.
After examining the material placed on record, the High Court held that the judgments relied upon by the applicants were distinguishable on facts and did not advance their case. The Court observed that although the banner expressed condemnation of the deaths of Atiq Ahmed and Ashraf Ahmed, it also contained abusive remarks directed at a particular religion. On a prima facie reading, the contents of the banner attracted the penal provisions invoked in the FIR.
The Bench further held that the applicants could not avoid prosecution merely because they claimed to have acted at the instance of the co-accused. At the prima facie stage, knowledge that the printing and public display of the banner was likely to hurt the religious feelings of a community and promote communal disharmony could reasonably be attributed to them.
Reiterating the settled principles governing the exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court observed that it could not conduct a mini-trial or undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence while deciding a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings.
Since the FIR, the investigation material and the contents of the banner disclosed a prima facie commission of cognisable offences, the Court held that no case was made out for exercising its inherent powers to interfere with the prosecution. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
The post Bombay High Court refuses to quash FIR against printing press owner over banner on Atiq Ahmed killing appeared first on India Legal.