Quashing of criminal complaint for lack of Section 295A ingredients extends to co-accused on parity

Section 295A penalises only deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings; mere insult or careless conduct is insufficient. On scrutiny of the complaint, the allegations did not disclose even prima facie ingredients of the offence, so continuation of the criminal proceedings was not warranted and the complaint was quashed. Because the foundation of the prosecution failed entirely, the same relief was extended to the co-accused on parity, as further continuation would amount to an abuse of process and create inconsistent treatment among similarly placed accused persons. The complaint and connected transfer proceeding were terminated against all accused.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the allegations in the complaint disclosed the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 so as to warrant continuation of the criminal proceedings; (ii) Whether the benefit of quashing granted on the same allegations could also be extended to the co-accused on the principle of parity.

Issue (i): Whether the allegations in the complaint disclosed the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 so as to warrant continuation of the criminal proceedings.

Analysis: Section 295A penalises only deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings. Mere insult, careless conduct, or allegations lacking the requisite intention do not satisfy the statutory ingredients. On scrutiny of the complaint, the allegations were found not to disclose even remotely the essential elements of the offence. The governing principle applied was that criminal proceedings can be quashed where the complaint does not disclose a prima facie offence.

Conclusion: The complaint proceedings were rightly quashed as the ingredients of Section 295A were not made out.

Issue (ii): Whether the benefit of quashing granted on the same allegations could also be extended to the co-accused on the principle of parity.

Analysis: Once the complaint itself was found unsustainable for want of the basic ingredients of the offence, the same foundation could not survive against the co-accused. The decision proceeded on the basis that continuing the prosecution in such circumstances would amount to abuse of the process of court and would lead to inconsistent treatment of similarly placed accused persons.

Conclusion: The complaint was quashed against the co-accused as well.

Final Conclusion: The criminal complaint and the connected transfer proceeding were finally terminated, and the prosecution was not permitted to continue against any accused person.

Ratio Decidendi: A complaint alleging insult to religion is liable to be quashed where it does not disclose deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings, and the same relief must extend to similarly situated co-accused when the prosecution foundation fails entirely.

---