Call someone in a bad taste, but no criminal offense: SC | Last news India

“The complainant is accused of having violated the informant's religious feelings by calling him 'Miyan-Tiyan' and 'Pakistani'. Undoubtedly, those made that have been made are a bad taste. However, it does not mean to violate the religious feelings of the informant, ”noticed a bank, which judges from Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma included.

The case comes from a first information report (FIR) as a Bokaro in Jharkhand, based on a complaint by MD Shamim Uddin – an URDU translator and incumbent employee (right to information). According to the complaint, Hari Nandan Singh, an 80-year-old man, who allegedly with municipal slopes and exerted criminal violence against him, while the latter fulfilled his official duties. The incident led to the registration of the case in accordance with sections 298 (injured religious feelings), 504 (intentional insult to provoke the fracture of peace), 506 (criminal intimidation), 353 (attack to prevent the public servant from duty) and 323 (voluntarily cause injuries) of the IPC.

Read too: The Supreme Court has a rape procedure against the former army officer

After the investigation had been completed, the police submitted a fee sheet, and the judge received the crimes in July 2021 and conjured up the defendant. Singh then filed an application for discharge, which was partly allowed by the magistrate on March 24, 2022, discharging Him of Offenses Under Sections 323 But Retaining Charges Under Sections 298, 353 and 504. So High Court Failed, Compelling Him to Approach the Supreme Court.

In its judgment on February 11, although recently published, the bank quoted its decision in Sajjan Kumar against CBI (2010), which set the principles for determining the wealth of material for framework fees. When using these principles, the bank examined the FIR and found that none of the essential ingredients of the alleged crimes were fulfilled.

The court examined whether Singh's statements were sufficient to present a crime in accordance with sections 298, 504 and 353 of the IPC, and ultimately found no basis for the criminal charges.

In addition to the derogatory comments from Singh, the court admitted that the remarks were inappropriate, but came to the conclusion that it did not meet the legal threshold that was necessary to set a crime in accordance with Section 298 IPC, and relieved the accused after this provision. After the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Section 298 of IPC was replaced by section 302 from July 2024.

The bank also found no material that pointed out that the accused had applied criminal violence against the complainant in a way that justifies an indictment according to § 353 IPC, and also rejected the applicability of IPC from § 504, which indicated that there was no act on Singh's part that could have provoked a break. The court said that the mere use of derogatory words does not necessarily represent a criminal offense unless there is a direct and immediately impending danger of a public disorder.

The Supreme Court attached the request of the Supreme Court, allowed Singh's appeal and relieved him of everyone.