How were accused identified? Supreme Court on shouting 'Jai Shri Ram' inside mosque

The Supreme Court on Monday sought the response of the Karnataka government on how the accused who allegedly shouted “Jai Shri Ram” inside a mosque in the State were identified..A Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sandeep Mehta asked whether CCTV or any other evidence was checked before ascertaining the identity of the accused."How were the respondents identified. Did you see CCTV and made the accused party," the Court asked.The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the complainant challenging a Karnataka High Court verdict which had held that shouting “Jai Shri Ram” inside a mosque does not attract the offence of outrage the religious feelings/ sentiments.The Court posed these questions to the complainant's counsel and eventually directed that a copy of the appeal filed by the complainant be served on the State government. The State is yet to file an appeal against the High Court verdict."Serve the state. Petitioner to serve State of Karnataka. We are not issuing notice. List after 2 weeks," the Court directed..The Karnataka High Court had on September 13 quashed the criminal proceedings against two men booked on allegations that they insulted others' religious beliefs.The case involves allegations that two residents of Dakshin Kannada district, Keerthan Kumar and Sachin Kumar, entered a local mosque named Badnya Jumma Mashib last year and shouted “Jai Shri Ram."The two also allegedly threatened that "they will not allow Bearys (Muslims) to live in peace."Both men were booked by the local police under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including Section 295A (acts intended to outrage religious feelings), 447 (trespass), and 506 (criminal intimidation), following a complaint registered against them.The two later moved the Karnataka High Court seeking the quashing of the criminal case against them.On September 13 this year, Justice M Nagaprasanna of the High Court granted them relief and quashed the case, observing:“Section 295A deals with deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. It is ununderstandable as to how if someone shouts ‘Jai Sriram’ it would outrage the religious feeling of any class. When the complainant himself states that Hindu – Muslims are living in harmony in the area the incident by no stretch of imagination can result in antimony."The High Court also found that the alleged act in this case did not have any adverse effect on public order.“The Apex Court holds that any and every act will not become an offence under Section 295A of the IPC. The acts that have no effect on bringing out peace or destruction of public order will not lead to an offence under Section 295A of the IPC," the High Court added..The complainant in the case then moved the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court took a very pedantic view of the matter, and that its approach was against Supreme Court judgments on how to deal with petitions to quash criminal cases."It is submitted that the test to be employed in adjudicating a quashing petition is not whether the ingredients of offences alleged in the FIR are met, but whether the allegations made in the FIR, taken at face value, disclose the commission of cognizable offences," the appeal said. As per the plea, the allegations in this case, at face value, indicates the commission of various offences. According to the complainant, the Supreme Court itself has repeatedly deprecated the quashing of criminal proceedings at the stage of investigation.Moreover, the complainant also disagreed with the High Court's observations regarding whether shouting 'Jai Shri Ram' in a mosque would constitute an insult to a religious class."For reasons best known to itself, (the High Court) has adopted a very peculiar approach and rendered a finding that "It is ununderstandable as to how if someone shouts 'Jai Sriram' it would outrage the religious feeling of any class", completely ignoring the fact that such utterances were made by the accused by trespassing into the Mosque ... along with threatening the Muslim community. It is most deferentially submitted that such uncalled for and unjustified observations by the High Court will give a fillip to anti social elements, who in recent times have been seen to be resorting to such religious and devotional chants to justify gruesome crimes like mob lynching and targeted attacks upon the minorities across the country," the plea said.