The Supreme Court Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma recently ruled that calling someone "Miyan-Tiyan" or "Pakistani" may be in poor taste but does not amount to the offence of hurting religious sentiments under Section 298 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court made this observation while quashing criminal proceedings against a man accused of making these remarks toward a government servant performing his official duties.

The case originated when a FIR was registered at Bokaro, Sector-IV on a complaint by an informant who was an Urdu Translator and Acting Clerk in the Sub- divisional office, Chas. The informant had alleged that the appellant had requested some information from the Additional Collector-cum-First Appellate Authority, Bokaro, which was sent to him via registered post.

However, the appellant later filed an appeal before the Additional Collector-cum-First Appellate Authority, allegedly after tampering with the documents sent to him by the office via registered post and falsely accusing the office of document manipulation. Following the Sub-Divisional Officer’s direction, the informant personally delivered the information to the appellant on 18th November, 2020. Although the appellant initially refused to accept the documents, he eventually did so after insistence by the informant .

During the interaction, the appellant allegedly abused the informant with remarks about his religion and used criminal force to deter him from performing his official duties. Based on the informant’s report, an FIR was registered against the appellant under Sections 298, 504, 506, 353, and 323 of the IPC.

After the investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and on 8th July, 2021, the Magistrate took cognizance and framed charges under Sections 353, 298, and 504 IPC while dismissing charges under sections 506 and 323 due to insufficient evidence. The appellant’s discharge application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. was rejected on 24th March, 2022, followed by the dismissal of his criminal revision petition by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Bokaro, on 20th February, 2023. The Jharkhand High Court also rejected the appellant’s plea on 28th September, 2023, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court.

The appellant’s counsel argued that the complaint did not meet the legal requirements under the alleged sections. He emphasized that there was no evidence of physical force under Section 353 IPC, and the alleged remarks, while offensive, did not amount to hurting religious sentiments under Section 298 IPC. Additionally, there was no act likely to provoke a breach of peace to justify a charge under Section 504 IPC. Given the appellant’s age, the counsel urged the Court to discharge him from the proceedings.

The learned standing counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the appeal lacks merit. Referring to the counter affidavit, he asserted that it clearly explains how the offences have been correctly alleged against the appellant. He further contended that the impugned order is justified and does not require any interference.

The Supreme Court after a thorough perusal of the facts and submissions made, found that there was no evidence of assault or use of force to sustain the charge under Section 353 IPC. It also held that the appellant’s alleged remarks, though in poor taste, did not amount to hurting religious sentiments under Section 298 IPC. Further, the Court found no act by the appellant that could provoke a breach of peace under Section 504 IPC.

"the appellant is accused of hurting the religious feelings of the informant by calling him “Miyan-Tiyan” and“Pakistani.” Undoubtedly, the statements made are in poor taste. However, it does not amount to hurting the religious sentiments of the informant." The Court remarked.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and discharged the appellant from all charges, reaffirming that criminal proceedings must be based on clear and substantial evidence.

Case Details: Hari Nandan Singh vs. State Of Jharkhand, Crl.A. No. 683 of 2025

Advocate for the Petitioner: Vipin Gupta

Advocate for the Respondent: Tulika Mukherjee