AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard.
In this batch of writ petitions common grievance is agitated and prayer is made which runs parallel to each other and thereby are being heard
together.
The facts of these cases are that these petitions are preferred by the different persons of the village primarily of three districts Sukma, Kanker,
Kondagaon of South Bastar. It is stated that the petitioners are followers of the Christian religion and they live with their family along with the villagers
who also follow the same religion. It is further stated that in the month from April to July, 2017, the villagers, who are not the followers of the Christian
community in connivance with group of people made forceful entry into their houses, destroyed the household articles and abused them because they
are the followers of the Christian community. The threat was also extended to the extent that if they follow the rituals of Christianity, they will face
the dire consequences and further they were not allowed to cultivate their lands and were forced to leave their houses in the village. When the report
was made to the police of the respective district, the police remained dormant and despite the cognizable offence was reported, no actions were taken
and even the FIR was not registered. The prayer therefore, is made that the FIR be registered against the miscreants and directions also be given to
the authorities to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners and their family members so that they can practice their religion without any fear or
threat.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the right to live with dignity is guaranteed under the Constitution of India under Article 21 and
Article 25 give them right to freedom of religion and also to propagate the same, therefore, under the threat or pressure, the same cannot be taken
away.
The reply of the State is perused. The reply of the State would show that when various reports were made an enquiry was carried out to find out
the veracity of the complaint. On enquiry, it revealed that the petitioners who were following the Christian religion, since denied to accept the custom
and tradition of other villagers, the quarrel took place in between the villagers and the complainants. It is further been stated that the enquiry has
revealed that the petitioners were also indulged in insulting the deity of the tribals and pass comments on their custom and also were alluring the
villagers for conversion into Christian religion, therefore, the anger and wrath erupted. The reply shows that at the time of such attack, the damage
was caused to the complainants and because of the conduct of the petitioners, it happened. Consequently, the offence under Sections 107 & 116 (3)
of the Cr.P.C.was lodged against some of the villagers.
Perused the documents along with the reply. The enquiry conducted by the SDOP in one of the case, is on record. The report shows that the police
tried to settle the dispute in village, however, the same did not yield any result.
The report made by the petitioners would show that the villagers in the group attacked the house of the petitioners and damages were done
including vandalizing the houses and the Church. The reply filed by the State apparently shows that despite the cognizable offence having been
reported, no actions were taken, instead a via media was adopted to solve the issue by holding meeting in between the parties assigning the reason that
the dispute exists in between two sets of the communities.
The Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others {(2014) 2 SCC 1} has held as follows:-
“120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no
preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be
conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing
the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose
reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers
who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the
information reveals any cognizable offence.
120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The
category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
(a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes
(b) Commercial offences
(c) Medical negligence cases
(d) Corruption cases
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months’ delay in reporting the matter without
satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
120.7. While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time-bound and in any case it
should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.
120.8. Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information
relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the
said diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.â€
Therefore, taking into the nature of the complaint, apparently, it appears that cognizable offence was reported by the petitioners, for which the
police was duty bound to register the FIR. They could not deny the registration of the FIR. The police is not expected to act in a manner to enquire
into the matter then finally forming its opinion that FIR has no value, therefore, it need not require to be registered. Reply of the State further laments
that the cognizable offence was reported as damage to the persons and property was caused by the group of villagers, therefore, they were under
duty to register the FIR in pursuance to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari (supra). Consequently, it is directed that the
police shall investigate the matter and register the FIR pursuant to the provisions laid down in Lalita Kumari (supra).
Further the reply of the State would show that the efforts were made to settle the dispute in between two communities but petitioners refused to
follow to other rituals and practice. These facts are evident from the meeting conducted by the SDOP. The petitioners who were followers of
particulars sects and religion cannot be forced by mob or other villagers to practice other way of religion & practice. The opposition to follow a
particular religion or culture cannot be said to be illegal as it gets a protection guaranteed by the Constitution under Article 25. The Article 25 gives a
person a right to follow, profess, practice and propagate religion of his choice. The primary enquiry, which was carried out by the SDOP and report so
given to the higher official would show that the villagers have pressurized the petitioners to follow their religion in a particular way and having been
refused to accept the same, the incident happened.
As has been settled in various cases that conditioning of thought process cannot be made prescribing what to read and what not to read, insofar as,
religious beliefs are concerned. The religious practices and performances of acts in pursuance of a religious belief are as much a part of religion as
faith and belief in a particular doctrine. The essential part of religion and religious belief cannot be curtailed by any mob or group of people by flexing
their muscles. So long as the freedom of individual group do not trench upon the further group of people who follow a different religion, the same
cannot be curtailed. The petitioners are also expected to honour and not to insult any faith or deity of the other religion to supersede their culture or
separate any superstition by extending any fertile attraction. The religious freedom guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution of India is intended to
be a guide to a community life and ordain every religion to act according to its cultural and social demands. It extends to acts done in furtherance of
religion, therefore, they contain a guarantee for rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worships which are integral parts of a religion. The
life and the personal liberty, therefore, also are recognized by the Constitution as an intrinsic and inseparable part of human and they are inalienable
right and are inseparable from dignified human existence. Therefore, the enforcement authorities, who are liable to maintain the law and order cannot
sit on the fence and watch the infringement of the right by any group of people inter se.
The State authorities have been given police powers to solve like nature of issue which runs parallel to the guarantee given by the Constitution to
an individual. If the muscle power of a group of people or undue influence through superstition are allowed to suppress another religion, it would be a
fraud on the constitution and in India wherein the social fabric and culture is so much diversified, it will lead to entire fragmentation of society and
safety of each individual. Holding of meeting by officials do not involve such trust but aggravate the poor climate. The value of Constitution of India do
not allow the happenings of like nature to be a story book of land where nobody is responsible for anything done and any citizen cannot be inundated
with insult and assault.
As a final conclusion, it is directed that:-
(i) In the complaint, if the congnizable offence has been disclosed, the FIR is to be registered and the investigation to be carried out.
(ii)The State is bound to protect its citizens to follow their religion at their own will and allow them to propagate the same as guaranteed under Article
25 of the Constitution of India without rude and crude or insult to any other religion.
(iii)Further the State is bound to arrest to spread superstitions by any group of people to project symbolic collapse of other religion and claim
superiority.
(iv) Every citizen has a right to live with dignity and same cannot be taken away by unexpected punch or power by any group of people and State is
expected to uphold freedom of liberty & thoughts of its citizen in follow of their faith & religion subject to just exception.
With such observation, all the writ petitions stand disposed of.