1976 P Cr (PLP)

Ch. Khalilur Rehman for Petitioners. Saleem Akhtar Khan for the State. Date of hearing : 1st June 1976. This is an application under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. for quashing proceed ings under section 295, P. P. C. pending against the petitioners in the Court of Resident Magistrate, Ferozewala.

2. Facts leading to the above application are that F. I. R. No. 114/74 was lodged at the Police Station Sharaqpur on 4‑6‑1974 to the effect that contrary to civil Court decree dated 1.6‑1890, the two (kutba jaat) inscriptions with "Ya Shaikh Abdul Kadir Jilani Rehmatullah Aliehe" on the front arch of a mosque and its outer‑gate were removed by the petitioners, on account of which religious feelings of Ahlai Sunnat Wal Jama'at were injured and, when asked to re‑fix the same, the petitioners abused and threatened violence. After investigation, the police submitted a challan against the fourteen petitioners.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners belong to Ahlai Hadith School of thought and they have the manage ment of the mosque in question in accordance with the civil Court decree mentioned in the F. I. R. Learned counsel has further contended that assuming for the sake of argument the existence of the facts that the petitioners did remove the aforesaid two kataba jat with the inscription "Ya Shaikh Abdul Kadir Jilani Rehmatullah Aliehe" that did not amount to damaging or defiling any place of worship or any object held sacred by any class of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons, or, with the knowledge that any class of persons was likely to consider such damage or defilement as an insult to their religion. Learned counsel contends that the stones, on which was incribed the name of Sh. Abdul Qadir Jilani (R.A) are not a sacred object, nor, can the petitioner be said to have injured or insulted the religion of any class of persons because it is no part of the religion of any Muslim that the stones, on which are inscribed the names of persons though entitled to reverence, become sacred by themselves. He has referred to some text books and also to a statement of law given by Sir S. H. Gour on Penal Law of India, Edition 1921, para. 2935 at page 1462.

2. Learned counsel for the State has contended that it is no stage for quashment of the proceedings because no evidence has yet been led and it would be for the prosecution to produce evidence to show that by the act of the petitioners religious feelings of people had been insulted by the petitioners in respect of objects which those people held, sacred. Without recording of any evidence, the learned counsel codtends, it is pre‑mature to say hat no case can be made out and consequently, the proceedings are not liable to be quashed.

4. The relevant provision is enacted under section 295, P. P. C. and is to the following effect:‑‑ "Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any abject bold sacred by any class of persons with the intention thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to their religion, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." Sir S. H. Gour, quoted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, while discussing the aforesaid section has stated that section is enacted to respect the feelings of the different communities and at makers that the test for judging of the sacredness of air object. If it is regarded sacred by any class of man, no matter why and how, it is sacred object for the purpose of this section". The learned author is quite right that the purpose of the penal provision is to prohibit at the pain of punishment any act injuring the feelings of any class of people based on or emanating from religious beliefs or notions. It is quite plain that people can be or made to be highly susceptible on religious grounds or by appeal to their sentiments on the score. Therefore, any conduct or act having propensity towards the above puts the man on a dangerous and slippery track. No more need be said in this behalf at this stage in view of the order proposed to be passed and lest that might prejudice the case of either party. The proceedings before the learned trial Court at present are at the initial stage. No evidence has yet been recorded. It would be premature to say what evidence would be led by the parties. In these circumstances, there is no justification to invoke the provisions of section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. for quashing the proceedings. However, a word may be said before concluding this order and that is that the learned District Magistrate, Sheikhupura might personally consider as to whether a prosecution of this nature in which two sects are arraigned against each other should be allowed to be carried on and whether the authorities cannot sort Out the matter on administrative level which would appear to be better for all concerned and in administrative and national interest. A copy of this order may be sent to the District Magistrate, Sheikhupura.

5. Subject to the above observations, this petition dismissed. Petition dismissed.