New Delhi,Mar 04
The Supreme Court has held using terms such as “miyan-tiyan” and “Pakistani” was not an offence of hurting religious sentiments though made in poor taste.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma therefore discharged a man in a criminal case filed by an Urdu translator and acting clerk under the Right to Information (RTI) in the sub-divisional office, Chas in Jharkhand.
The February 11 court order said, “The appellant is accused of hurting the religious feelings of the informant by calling him ‘miyan-tiyan’ and ‘Pakistani’. Undoubtedly, the statements made are in 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.” Section 298 of the IPC deals with words or gestures made with a deliberate intent to wound religious feelings.
It came on record that accused, Hari Nandan Singh, sought information under the RTI Act from the additional collector-cum-first appellate authority, Bokaro, and the information was dispatched to him.
However, he filed an appeal before the appellate authority, allegedly after manipulating the documents sent to him by the office through registered post and making false allegations of manipulation in the documents.
The appellate authority directed the translator to personally serve the information to the appellant.
On November 18, 2020, the informant, accompanied by the messenger of the sub-divisional office, Chas, went to the accused’s home to hand over the information.
The accused initially refused to accept the documents but upon insistence by the informant, accepted them.
It was alleged that he abused the informant while referring to his faith and used criminal force against him.
This matter prompted the translator to file an FIR against the accused.
Following an investigation, the trial court ordered framing of charges against the accused under Sections 353 (assault or criminal force on a public servant) and 504 (intentional insult) of the IPC.
The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the accused’s plea for quashing the proceedings.
While hearing the man’s plea against the high court order, the bench discharged him of the offence of intentional insult, observing “no act on his part that could have provoked a breach of peace” apart from Section 353.
