Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash Hate Speech Case Against Congress Leader Mukram Khan
The Karnataka High Court was considering a Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused persons in a case registered under Sections 298, 295(A) and 212 read with Section 34 of IPC.
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash the proceedings against Congress Leader Mukram Khan for making a speech in the State in the year 2022 relating to the hijab controversy, thereby hurting the sentiments of the Hindu community. The High Court, however, quashed the proceedings against his son, who had allegedly helped Khan escape.
The High Court was considering a Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused persons in a case registered under Sections 298, 295(A) and 212 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
The Single Bench of Justice Rajesh Rai K held, “All these witnesses have categorically stated the act committed by accused No.1. As such, there are prima facie materials placed in the charge-sheet against accused No.1 for the offences he has been charged.”
Advocate N B Diwanji represented the Petitioner, while High Court Government Pleader Gopal Krishna B. Yadav represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The case dates back to the year 2022, when the second respondent lodged a complaint before the Police alleging that the first accused (petitioner), being the leader of the Indian National Congress Party, along with a group of persons belonging to the Muslim community, had tried to hurt the feelings of the Hindu community in a public speech at Sedam City. It was alleged that he had stated that he would cut into pieces the persons belonging to the Hindu religion in respect of the hijab incident. Hence, the FIR came to be registered under Sections 153A, 298, and 295 of the IPC, against the first accused. The Hijab incident in question pertains to the upholding of the ban on Hijab in educational institutions by the High Court.
During the course of the investigation, it was revealed to the respondent-Police that the second accused had given shelter to his father at Hyderabad and thereby, helped him escape. The Police thus filed a charge-sheet against both the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 298, 295(A) and 212 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Based on the charge-sheet, the Magistrate took cognisance of the offences. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached the High Court in order to get the proceedings quashed.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the records, the Bench noted that the first accused, on the date of the incident, with deliberate and malicious intentions, outraged the religious feelings of Hindus by saying that he would cut them into pieces in respect of the Hijab incident. Subsequently, the respondent Police investigated the case. It was further noticed that all the witnesses had categorically stated the act committed by the first accused.
Coming to the second accused, the Bench noted that the only allegation against him was that he provided shelter to the first accused and thereby helped him escape. The Bench stated, “It is settled position of law that, in order to invoke Section 212 of IPC, the investigation has to be conducted by Police separately after getting permission from the Magistrate, since it is a distinct offence by registering a crime. In the principal offence, the co-accused cannot be implicated under the said provision.”
Holding that the allegations made against the second accused do not make out a prima facie case for the offences under Section 212 of the IPC, the Bench quashed the proceedings initiated against him. The Bench, however, ordered, “The proceedings against the petitioner No.1/accused No.1 shall continue.”
Cause Title: Mukram Khan v. State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC-K:985)