Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against officers of public sector South Eastern Coalfields Limited, accused of outraging religious feelings, for their acts of shifting monuments, artefacts and remains of a temple at the instance of the High Court in district Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur's Sati Mandir after the fire incident during the mining operations.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan said that to invoke Section 295A IPC, the essential pre-requisite is mens rea. However, the said requirement is missing in the present case as the appellants were merely complying with the directions of the High Court passed in a public and direction of the SDM in the letter of November 10, 2023.

"The allegation that the appellants acted unauthorisedly in absence of the SDM is inherently improbable and absurd as district authorities would have been and should have been present on the site in view of the emergent situation and in view of the directions passed by the High Court," the bench said.

The court also felt further, if the SDM was of the view that the order of the High Court of Chhattisgarh had been disobeyed or violated, the officer should have approached the High Court by filing an appropriate application instead of filing an FIR.

"This court is of the opinion that the appellants, being employees of South Eastern Coalfields Limited, acted with the intent and object of preserving a natural resource which was burning in the coalmines and which fire posed a serious and recurring threat to Sati Mandir," the bench said.

The court held that none of the acts of the appellants can be said to be consciously designed to provoke and incite or insult or attempt to insult any religion or religious belief. Consequently, the requirement of mens rea is not satisfied in the present case, it said.

Appellants Manish Kumar Singh and another person approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's order of June 26, 2024, dismissing their to quash the FIR lodged in 2023.

The High Court gave the sole reason given by the High Court for dismissing the writ petition was that the investigation was in progress.

As per facts of the matter, a huge fire broke out in the underground mine in the area of Sati Mandir. As the fire in the galleries could not be controlled despite all efforts, the mining activity was stopped. Further, the Sati Temple which was standing on the pillars was depillared on the southern side. As a result of depillaring, subsidence on the ground surface occurred and due to subsidence, a fissured zone developed above coal seam which gave access to the air from the surface which facilitated underground gallery fire.

Some of the residents of the area filed a public interest litigation before the High Court which on September 19, 2023 directed for shifting and keeping the artefacts and monuments, available in the spot to a museum in the district.

The appellants' counsel contended that upon the instruction of the SDM of Chirmiri and with intent to comply with the directions passed by the High Court, they took action to ensure that the temple remains are handled with the utmost care and sensitivity.

He stated that the process of shifting of the temple commenced under the supervision of the SDM of Chirmiri and the SDM took swift steps to address the situation by preparing a Panchnama on the spot, documenting the circumstances surrounding the removal and obstructions created by some residents.

The counsel pointed out that the Panchnama of November 11, 2023 was prepared in the presence of the complainant (SDM) and Depesh Saini, Police Station In-charge along with local authority ensuring transparency and accuracy in the process. He contended that this collaborative approach allowed for a thorough examination of the scene, with all parties contributing to a comprehensive account of the situation. Further, the involvement of the local police legitimised the process, reinforcing the integrity of the findings recorded in the Panchnama.

However, subsequent to the panchnama, the SDM sent a show cause notice on November 12, 2023 regarding the complaint lodged by Harbhajan Singh (named in the list of obstructionist in the panchnama) and directed the appellants to reply within 48 hours.

Surprisingly on the same day i.e. November 12, 2023 at 1230 Hrs., at the instance of SDM (B S Markam), Chirmiri, police lodged FIR under Section 295A of IPC against the appellants, alleging that shifting of temple remains and artefacts had hurt the religious sentiments of public, the counsel said.

He claimed that the whole sequence of events from lodging of complaint, issuance of show cause notice and registering of FIR, even prior to timelines mentioned in the show cause notice evinces that the conduct of the complainant and SDM was induced by malice.

The counsel also stated that the appellants, who are employees of Public Sector Undertaking are in a transferable job and are suffering because of the FIR as it has an impact on their annual credential reports, wherein it has to be specifically stated as to whether any criminal case is pending against them.

The State counsel, on the opposite, submitted the FIR in question should not be quashed as the investigation is at a nascent stage and is still in progress.

Having heard the counsel, the bench said this court in criminal appeal titled as State of Jharkhand Vs Dr Nishkant Dubey & Ors has held that it is settled law that in exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or the inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC, it is open to the High Court to quash an FIR either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

The bench further pointed out though it is not possible to lay down any precise or rigidly defined formula, yet in State of Haryana & Ors Vs Bhajan Lal Lal & Ors (1992), this court has held that an FIR can be quashed if the allegations, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case or where there is an express legal bar.

Having gone through the provision of Section 295 A of the IPC, the bench found absence of mens rea on the part of appellants and allowed their appeal, while quashing the FIR in the case.

Case Title (download judgment): Manish Kumar Singh & Anr Vs State of Chhattisgarh