According to the supreme Court's ruling under Section 298 of the indian Penal Code (IPC), calling someone "Miyan-Tiyan" or "Pakistani" may be considered offensive, but it does not amount to an offense of offending religious emotions. Because the remarks were unacceptable but did not satisfy the legal threshold for criminal prosecution, the highest court dismissed the accused from charges under this provision.
In closing a case against an accused individual, hari Nandan Singh, who was accused of calling a government servant "Pakistani" while the latter was carrying out his official duties, a bench consisting of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma issued the verdict.
In closing a case against an accused individual, hari Nandan Singh, who was accused of calling a government servant "Pakistani" while the latter was carrying out his official duties, a bench consisting of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma issued the verdict.
"The remarks expressed are very offensive. It does not, however, equate to offending the informant's religious feelings. Therefore, we believe that the appellant will likewise be released under Section 298 IPC," the court said in its february 11 ruling.
Following an order from an appellate body, the complainant—an urdu translator and acting clerk under the Right to material (RTI) Act—personally gave some material to Singh, the accused.
After first objecting to the documents, Singh finally agreed, but allegedly insulted the complainant by mentioning his faith.
Additionally, it was claimed that Singh intimidated and dissuaded the complainant from carrying out his responsibilities as a public worker by using unlawful force against him.
After first objecting to the documents, Singh finally agreed, but allegedly insulted the complainant by mentioning his faith.
Additionally, it was claimed that Singh intimidated and dissuaded the complainant from carrying out his responsibilities as a public worker by using unlawful force against him.
Sections 298 (hurting religious sentiments), 504 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace), 506 (criminal intimidation), 353 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from duty), and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) are among the IPC provisions that resulted in the filing of a formal complaint against Singh.
After examining the case, the magistrate dismissed charges under Sections 323 and 506 for lack of evidence and drafted charges under Sections 353, 298, and 504.
Singh went to the supreme court after his request for discharge was denied by the Sessions court and then the rajasthan High Court.
After examining the case, the magistrate dismissed charges under Sections 323 and 506 for lack of evidence and drafted charges under Sections 353, 298, and 504.
Singh went to the supreme court after his request for discharge was denied by the Sessions court and then the rajasthan High Court.
The high court erred in failing to discharge the accused under Section 353 IPC, the supreme court decided, finding no evidence of assault or use of force to support the accusation.
The top court further said that Section 504 IPC did not apply because Singh had not done anything that would have caused a breach of peace.
Regarding Section 298 of the IPC, the supreme court recognized that although Singh's comments were improper, they did not legally qualify as hurting religious sentiments. Singh was thus exonerated of all accusations.
The top court further said that Section 504 IPC did not apply because Singh had not done anything that would have caused a breach of peace.
Regarding Section 298 of the IPC, the supreme court recognized that although Singh's comments were improper, they did not legally qualify as hurting religious sentiments. Singh was thus exonerated of all accusations.