Supreme Court: Calling Someone “Miyan-Tiyan” Or “Pakistani” Does Not Amount To Hurting Religious Sentiments
The Supreme Court allowed the Appeal challenging the decision of the Jharkhand High Court which dismissed the 80-year-old Appellant’s Petition under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has discharged a man accused of calling a government official “Miyan-Tiyan” and “Pakistani” while holding that the same does not amount to hurting religious sentiments under Section 298 of the IPC.
The Court allowed the Appeal challenging the decision of the Jharkhand High Court which had dismissed the 80-year-old Appellant’s Petition under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing the criminal proceedings against him. The FIR was registered based on a complaint by an Urdu Translator alleging that the Appellant abused him by referring to his religion and used criminal force against him while he was discharging his official duties, with the intention of intimidating and deterring him from performing his duties as a public servant.
A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that “Further, the appellant is accused of hurting the religious feelings of the informant by calling him “Miyan-Tiyan” and “Pakistani.” Undoubtedly, the statements made are poor taste. However, it does not amount to hurting the religious sentiments of the informant. Hence, we are of the opinion that the appellant shall also be discharged under Section 298 IPC.”
Senior Advocate A. Sirajudeen appeared for the Appellant, while Advocate Vishnu Sharma represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
Following an investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Sections 298, 504, 506, 353, and 323 of the IPC. The Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and later framed charges under Sections 353, 298, and 504 of the IPC while discharging the Appellant from other charges.
The Trial Court dismissed the Appellant’s Criminal Revision Petition and the High Court too dismissed the Petition for quashing the criminal proceedings.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court examined the contents of the FIR and found that the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 353, 298, and 504 of the IPC were not made out.
The Court referred to the principles it laid down in Sajjan Kumar v. CBI (2010) emphasising that at the stage of framing charges, the material on record must disclose a prima facie case. The Court reiterated that if the allegations do not raise a grave suspicion of an offence, the accused should be discharged.
“Applying the aforesaid judgment to the present case in light of what has been extracted above as the relevant portion of the First Information Report in light of the offence alleged as against the appellant herein, we do not find that any ingredients of the offences alleged as against the appellant herein find place in FIR registered as against him,” the Bench stated.
It was held, “A bare perusal of Case No. 140 of 2020 reveals that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the appellant under Sections 353, 298, and 504 IPC are not made out. Evidently, there was no assault or use of force by the appellant to attract Section 353 IPC. Therefore, the High Court ought to have discharged the appellant under Section 353 IPC.”
Consequently, the Court held, “In the circumstances, we set aside the order of the High Court which has sustained the order of the Trial Court and consequently, allow the application filed by the appellant herein and discharge the appellant from all the three offences alleged against him.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Hari Nandan Singh v. State Of Jharkhand (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 305)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate A. Sirajudeen; Advocates Arya Kumari, Divya Singhvi, Pardeep Gupta, Parinav Gupta, Mansi Gupta; AOR Vipin Gupta
Respondent: Advocates Vishnu Sharma, Shiv Ram Sharma, Venkat Narayan and Beenu Sharma; AOR Tulika Mukherjee