Allahabad HC declines to quash case against Muslim men for carrying Tiranga with Arabic Ve

Swati,

Asian Law College , Noida

Case Title

Gulamuddin And 5 Others v. State of UP and Another

Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has refused to quash a criminal case lodged against six Muslim men accused of carrying a Tiranga engraved with Arabic verses while taking out a religious procession. The Allahabad High Court had recently declined the prayer of six men for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against them for allegedly disrespecting the Tiranga, that is, the National Flag of India. The accusation against the appellants was that in a religious procession, they carried the national flag with Quranic verses inscribed on it, which meant 'only Allah is worth worshipping'. A case was registered at Jalaun, Uttar Pradesh under Section 2 of Prevention of Insults of National Honour Act, 1971. Justice Vinod Diwakar termed the act as an insult to the national flag and agreed with the prosecution that the case fell within Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act. Additionally, the Court expressed that Bharat's national flag represents the unity of the nation despite religious, ethnic, and cultural divisions.

"It is an emblem that binds together the common identity and sovereignty of Bharat" Contemptuous acts against the Tiranga have wide and serious social and cultural consequences more so in diversified culture of Bharat.

Events that can lead to communal riots

The same may be used by some elements desirous of creating communal dissatisfaction or spreading misunderstandings amongst the different strata of society.

While doing so, the Court brought out at the same time was the need to realize that the acts of some individuals alone cannot stigmatize the entire society. The Jalaun Police had booked the accused in the case last year. It was submitted that the investigation had not brought out whether the flag was the Tiranga or any other flag with three colours, and therefore, the proceedings be quashed. He further submitted that the police could not bring on record any evidence to show that any mischief was committed with the National Flag as defined in Sections 2 and 3 of the Act. Counsel further submitted that the National Flag was planted by the police after filing the FIR and the accused have been roped in a false case.

Parties Contentions

The tricolour flag was also waved during the parade, the Additional Government Advocate appearing for the state government informed the court. However, AGA took the plea on record of the statements of witnesses recorded by police under Section 161 CrPC that the accused had taken part in the religious procession and were carrying Tiranga in their hands.

Apprehending a false implication, the accused had moved the high court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the charges on the ground that the FIR lodged in 2023 was nothing but part of the smear campaign targeted at them for lack of material evidence and the flag in question was not even the Tiranga.

Their lawyers testified that the flag was fabricated and planted by the police after the commission of the act and that witnesses' statements were compelled through pressure.

The tricolor, then had something inscribed on it in Arabic.

These have been identified as Quranic and Kalm verses. Statements of police constables Khurshid Alam, Ehsanullah and Ramdas have been recorded in the court. The govt. counsel said that Shahar Qazi Maulana Sabir Ali when summoned to Jalaun and asked to read what was written on the banner stated that it read the Islamic Kalma. Besides it, a verse was written about the sword of Ali, 'Zulfiqar'. He also contended that the police had not furnished any evidence to establish that any mischief was committed against the national flag. However, the state relied upon the witness accounts to show that some particular Islamic texts were found written in Arabic on the Tiranga.

 Court's contemplation on the case

The Court went on saying that the contentions urged on behalf of the accused require a decision on questions of fact, which can appropriately be dealt with only by the trial court.

While leaving aside the adjudication of problems of facts and evidence, the analysis of trustworthiness and credibility of the version is beyond the scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The evidence on record cannot justify that the impugned criminal proceedings were manifestly mala fide and maliciously instituted with the intention of wreaking vengeance on the accused and to spite him due to a private and personal grudge," the Court said while dismissing the plea seeking quashing of the case.

The bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar found force in the argument of AGA and held that the act of the accused was prima-facie punishable under the Flag Code of India, 2002; and there was a violation of Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults of National Honour Act, 1971 on their part.

It is the national flag representing unity and diversity of the great nation beyond religious ethic and cultural difference. The national flag acts as a binding emblem representing collective identity and sovereignty. An act of disrespect towards the Tiranga can have wide ramifications in social-cultural perspective, particularly in a diverse society like India, said the court.

Conclusion

It is said that incidents like the one that occurred in the present case could be misused by elements who desire to create communal disharmony or accentuate the misunderstandings between different communities, and it needs to be realised that action against a few persons could not be extended to smear an entire community.

The court further observed that questions of fact, such as whether the flag was real or not, and whether the witnesses were reliable or not, were to be adjudicated upon during trial.

The high court observed that its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is limited, and does not extend to examining the reliability of evidence or determining factual disputes. In effect, the court had found no sufficient error or illegality in the proceedings of the lower court or the order summoning which would justify its interference. Accordingly, the plea was dismissed.