Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Uttarakhand High Court has recently rejected a compounding application filed by Deputy District Secretary of Rashtriya Hindu Vahini, Udham Singh Nagar in a 2019 case. 

Allegedly, the accused had used derogatory remarks towards other religions and had posted the same on WhatsApp status and consequently a case under Section 295A of IPC had been registered against him. The accused approached the high court by filing a compounding plea on the ground of an amicable settlement between him and the complainant in the case. 

The bench of Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma observed that a high court which exercises its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be conscious, as to whether, the offences, which are attempted to be compounded under Section 320 of CrPC, carry a very wider social impact, which disturbs the basic secular fabric of the country or not as such offences, cannot be permitted to be compounded.

"That is why, Section 295A is excluded from the list of offences, which could be compounded under Section 320 of the CrPC," the single judge bench noted. 

The bench said that if being a citizen under Article 5 of the Constitution of India if a person does not carry respect for other religions, it may lead to a certain catastrophic situation which at times becomes uncontrollable by the administration and particularly so-called constructed religious groups of the country.

"The wider reason, why these words ‘socialist’, ‘secular’ and ‘democratic republic’ have been introduced in the Constitution are to inculcate in each and every citizen of this country, to have reciprocal respect and regard to the other religion. In the absence of the same, if this act of derogating the other’s religious sentiments is permitted to continue, it rather acts as a parasite, which eats the society itself and creates an uncalled for animosity resulting in public disorder and unrest,' the bench added. 

Therefore, while stressing that apparently, the offence committed by the accused might seem to be quite simple in nature carrying a sentence of a maximum period of three years, court denied compounding the offence under Section 295A of IPC looking to its wider social effect on the public and community at large.

Furthermore, court underscored that since the counsel for the accused himself had apprised the court that the accused was ready to offer an apology, the same would amount to be an admission of guilt. Court opined that therefore, the alleged offence against the accused was required to be tried by the trial court. 

Case No: C482No. 706 of 2023