S. 295A IPC | Dusty Quran Copies On Floor Not Enough To Prove Intent To Outrage Religious Feelings: Telangana HC

The Telangana High Court has held that merely keeping copies of the Holy Quran on the floor and the presence of dust or other material on pages containing Quranic verses would not attract the offence under Section 295A IPC in the absence of deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings.

Justice N. Tukaramji made the observation while quashing criminal proceedings against a man booked under Section 295A IPC over allegations concerning the manner in which copies of the Holy Quran were kept at a printing and binding press.

The Court clarified that Section 295A IPC is attracted only when there is a deliberate and malicious act intended to outrage the religious feelings of a class of citizens.

"Mere negligence, carelessness, inadvertent conduct or an act without the necessary mens rea would not constitute an offence under Section 295-A IPC" the Court observed.

What were the allegations?

The case arose from a complaint alleging that, when the complainant visited Sharada Printing & Binding Press in Amberpet, Hyderabad, on January 24, 2024, he noticed bundles of the Holy Quran that had been entrusted for binding, kept on the floor without proper covering or protection.

It was further alleged that inappropriate material/dust was found on papers containing verses of the Holy Quran, thereby causing disrespect to the sacred religious text.

The complainant alleged that such acts amounted to insulting and hurting the religious sentiments of followers of Islam, following which a criminal case was registered.

What was the defence of the accused?

The accused moved the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings pending before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

It was argued on his behalf that the allegations did not satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 295A IPC. The religious books, according to the prosecution's own case, had been placed at the printing and binding press for binding, and there was no material to suggest that they had been intentionally or deliberately treated with disrespect.

It was further contended that Section 295A does not criminalise every act that may incidentally or unintentionally hurt religious feelings and applies only to acts committed with a deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of a class of citizens.

The accused also raised a procedural objection, pointing out that prosecution for an offence under Section 295A IPC was subject to the mandatory requirement under Section 196 CrPC, which prohibited a court from taking cognizance of the offence without the previous sanction of the Central or State Government.

The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the plea but conceded that the procedure contemplated under Section 196 CrPC, requiring previous sanction before cognizance could be taken for an offence under Section 295A IPC, had not been complied with.

What did the High Court observe?

The High Court noted that the challenge to the criminal proceedings was twofold: first, that the Magistrate's cognizance was legally unsustainable for want of previous sanction under Section 196 CrPC; and second, that even if the allegations in the charge sheet were accepted at face value, they did not disclose the deliberate and malicious intention necessary to attract Section 295A IPC.

On the issue of sanction, the Court held that the bar under Section 196 CrPC was mandatory and that a court was prohibited from taking cognizance of an offence under Section 295A IPC unless previous sanction had been obtained from the competent government.

"The object behind requiring sanction is to ensure that prosecution involving sensitive issues relating to religion and public order are initiated only after due consideration by the competent authority" the Court observed.

Since no sanction had admittedly been obtained before the Magistrate took cognizance, the High Court held that the cognizance suffered from a “fundamental procedural defect”.

The Court then examined whether the allegations otherwise made out an offence under Section 295A IPC.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decisions in Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P. and Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar, the High Court noted that Section 295A applies only to aggravated forms of insult to religion committed with deliberate and malicious intention and not to every act that may incidentally offend religious feelings.

The Court noted that insults offered unwittingly, carelessly or without deliberate or malicious intention do not fall within the ambit of Section 295A and that a calculated and intentional attempt to insult religious beliefs forms the foundation for attracting criminal liability under the provision.

Applying these principles to the case, the High Court found that the material collected during the investigation and the contents of the charge sheet did not indicate any specific act or circumstance demonstrating that the accused had acted with deliberate and malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens.

"The admitted factual position indicates that the books were placed in the printing and binding press for the purpose of binding. In the absence of any material showing intentional insult, the essential ingredient of mens rea required under Section 295-A IPC remains absent" the Court observed.

The High Court held that continuation of the criminal proceedings, when the foundational ingredients of the alleged offence were lacking and cognizance itself had been taken without complying with the mandatory requirement under Section 196 CrPC, would amount to an abuse of the process of court.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the proceedings against the accused.

Case Title: Malgireddy Sridhar Reddy v. State of Telangana & Anr.

Date of Order: July 3, 2026

Bench: Justice N. Tukaramji