The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has stayed criminal proceedings initiated against Jitendra Tyagi over allegations that he made derogatory remarks about Islam and Prophet Mohammad, observing that the trial court wrongly took cognizance of the complaint without securing the mandatory sanction from the Central Government.
The matter was heard by Justice Rahul Bharti, who found procedural lapses in how the trial court entertained the complaint filed by Respondent No. 2, especially under Sections 153-A, 295-A, and 505(1) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). These sections deal with promoting enmity between groups, deliberate acts to outrage religious feelings, and public mischief.
“The trial court has lached on to take cognizance of the complaint of the respondent without bothering to have even an elementary reading of Section 196 of the CrPC,” said the Court.
According to the court, Section 196 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) clearly mandates that prior sanction from the Central or State Government is a precondition before courts can take cognizance of offenses under the aforementioned sections. The purpose of this legal requirement is to ensure that such sensitive complaints undergo proper governmental scrutiny before being pursued in court.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Jitendra Tyagi, formerly known as Wasim Rizvi, converted from Islam to Hinduism. Following his conversion, he allegedly made derogatory remarks about Islam and Prophet Mohammad, which were widely circulated through news channels and newspapers.
The complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 accused Tyagi of using offensive language and content that insulted the religion of Islam and its holy book, the Quran. The complaint also stated that his remarks sparked outrage among Islamic scholars and Muslim organizations across the country.
Based on these allegations, the respondent urged prosecution under Sections 153-A, 295-A, 298, 504, and 505 of the IPC, which cover offenses such as promoting religious hatred, insulting religious beliefs, and causing public mischief.
However, the High Court pointed out a critical flaw in the lower court’s action. The Judicial Magistrate had taken suo moto cognizance of the matter and initiated an inquiry, even though the complainant had only sought directions to the police to register an FIR.
"From the tenor of the complaint, it appeared that the complainant never intended for the court to take cognizance directly but only sought police action,” noted the Court.
The magistrate proceeded to call for evidence and later concluded that a prima facie case existed. However, the petitioner’s counsel challenged this process, stating that the magistrate acted without legal jurisdiction and in violation of Section 196 CrPC, which requires prior approval from the government before proceeding.
Taking these arguments into account, the High Court has issued notice to the respondent and put the trial court proceedings on hold, pending further examination.
“There is a legislative purpose for requiring sanction from the appropriate government so as to set a safe reference in the institution of criminal complaints under these sections,” the Court emphasized.
APPEARANCE
Ankur Sharma, Advocate For Petitioner
Case-Title: Jitendra Narayan Tyagi @ Syed Waseem Rizvi vs UT of J&K , 2025
