JUDGMENT : 1. Vide the present petition, petitioner/A-6 seeks to quash all further proceedings in Crime No. 54 of 2010 on the file of II Town Police Station, Khammam District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 153-A and 295-A of I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution is that one Kranthikar alias M. Laxmaiah compiled and edited book entitled “Nene Taslima Nasreeni.” The said book contains serious and most sensitive topics compiled and opined with hasty comments against Islam, Holy Qhuran and Prophet Muhammad. The said book was published on 20.8.2008 at 11-01-88, Lenin Nagar, Khamma. The said book has pre-banned topics compiled from controversial book “Lajja” and other materials even after ban in force. The book has altogether 49 controversial, serious, sensitive contents, complied and edited in 168 pages against the beliefs, faith and sentiments of muslim community. The allegation against the petitioner /A-6 is that he along with other accused financially contributed and fully supported. Hence the crime for the offences punishable under Sections 153-A and 295-A of IPC has been registered. For quashing the same, the present petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. This court on 20.04.2010 while ordering notice to respondents 1 and 2, granted interim stay until further orders. 4. The petitioner/A-6, was working as Additional Transport Commissioner at Hyderabad and presently retired from service. He appeared in-person and advanced arguments. He submits that he has not contributed or financed for the compilation of the book in dispute and hence he cannot be implicated. However, he submits that the compiler of the book in dispute only compiled articles published in very renowned newspapers/magazines like Times of India, Statesmen Daily, Eenadu, Hindu, The Week magazine, Free Enquiry, American Magazine etc. The said articles compiled in the book in dispute were written by eminent people like Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, Sri Madabhushi Sridhar and Sri Khushwanth Singh etc., expressing concern over freedom of speech, expression, secularism, rationalism, concerned over the protection of women writers and not to promote religious enmity or hatred. The expression of different writers in the articles are in accordance with constitutional guarantees/goals included in the Constitution of India under Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 44 and 51-A. The articles published in the book express concern over pressurizing the democratic, socialistic and secular state that is included in the preamble of the Constitution of India. The expression of different writers in the articles are in accordance with constitutional guarantees/goals included in the Constitution of India under Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 44 and 51-A. The articles published in the book express concern over pressurizing the democratic, socialistic and secular state that is included in the preamble of the Constitution of India. Article 1 of the book at page 5 focuses on peace loving nature of Islam and as such, praises Islam. Articles covered at page Nos.54 and 55 are critical about the Government’s attitude in not protecting woman writer Taslima, however not against Islam or faith of Muslims. The articles are focused on preservation of secular democratic state and not against any religious beliefs and moreover, they are in line with the views expressed by Justice Krishna Iyer. Article on polygamies marriages is only to promote gender equality and not to hurt any religious sentiments. Right to live with dignity without fear is a constitutional guarantee given under Article 21 and it has to be extended to foreigners. This is the focus on expressions in the articles and they cannot be treated as promoting animosity between religions or spreading any malicious deliberate acts insulting religious feeling and beliefs as contemplated under Sections 153-A and 295-A of IPC. Therefore the contention of the petitioner is that as the ingredients of said sections are not forthcoming in the complaint, the FIR may be quashed. 5. No counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State while opposing the above submissions, contended that any article or compilation which hurts the feelings and sentiments of any community or religion, are liable to be punished. He has fairly conceded that the petitioner has not compiled, nor published the same. However, in the book, the name of the petitioner is mentioned as the person who extended financial assistance. He submits that as per the complaint, the contents in the book in dispute, which is in Telugu, are controversial and are in the nature of offending the sentiments, faith and beliefs of a particular religion. The said allegations can only be decided during trial based on evidence. Without there any evidence and sufficient material in support of the claim of the petitioner, this court cannot come to any conclusion. With these averments, he sought to dismiss the petition. 7. The said allegations can only be decided during trial based on evidence. Without there any evidence and sufficient material in support of the claim of the petitioner, this court cannot come to any conclusion. With these averments, he sought to dismiss the petition. 7. The learned counsel Sri Syed Lateef appearing for the 1st and 2nd respondents also made similar submissions as that of Additional Public Prosecutor and sought for dismissal of the petition. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, in length. 9. The allegation against the petitioner/A-6 in the complaint is that he, along with the other accused, has contributed in publishing of book entitled “Nene Taslima Nasreeni, which is compiled and edited by Kranthikar @ M.Laxmaiah. The said book is in the nature of disturbing the congenial atmosphere, peace, prosperity and to defame Islamic society, accordingly, he is liable to be punished under Section 153-A and 295-A of IPC. 10. The contention of the petitioner is that he has not contributed for publishing and editing of the said book and even otherwise, the said book only contains the compilation of different articles published by very renowned newspapers/magazines like Times of India, Statesman Daily, Enadu, Hindu, The Week Magazine, Free Enquiry, American Magazines etc. The said articles were written by eminent people like Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer, Sri Madhabhushi Sridhar and Sri Khushanwanth Singh expressing concern within the parameters of the Constitution of India under Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 44 and 51-A. 11. The petitioner is leveled with the allegations punishable under Sections 153-A and 295-A of IPC. The said articles were written by eminent people like Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer, Sri Madhabhushi Sridhar and Sri Khushanwanth Singh expressing concern within the parameters of the Constitution of India under Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 44 and 51-A. 11. The petitioner is leveled with the allegations punishable under Sections 153-A and 295-A of IPC. The relevant portions of the said provisions are extracted hereunder for better appreciation: 153-A: Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony: (1) Whoever — (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes, or communities, or (b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility, or (c) . . . 295A. Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs: Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to three years, or with fine, or with both. A reading of Section 153-A (1)(b) discloses that whoever commits any act, which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious etc., is liable to be punished. Under Section 295-A whoever with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging religious feeling of any class of citizens of India, insults its religion or religious beliefs by words etc., shall be punished with imprisonment. In other words, the acts which are liable to be punished shall be with malicious and deliberate intention, to outrage the religious feelings. 12. Under Section 295-A whoever with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging religious feeling of any class of citizens of India, insults its religion or religious beliefs by words etc., shall be punished with imprisonment. In other words, the acts which are liable to be punished shall be with malicious and deliberate intention, to outrage the religious feelings. 12. In the present case, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not produced any material even to prima facie suggest that the acts complained of in the present complaint against the petitioner / A-6, who is alleged to have contributed for publishing the book in dispute, have caused any disturbances enumerated in the above sections. The Apex Court in the decision reported in Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995) 3 SCC 214 , held as under: “9. Insofar as the offence under Section 153-A IPC is concerned, it provides for punishment for promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever or brings about disharmony or feeling of hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, linguistic or regional groups or castes or communities. In our opinion only where the written or spoken words have the tedency or intention or creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order or affect public tranquility, that the law needs to step into prevent such an activity. The intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence under Section 153-A of IPC and the prosecution has to prove the existence of mens rea in order to succeed.” 13. In another judgment, a learned single Judge of this court in Mohd. Khalid Hussain vs. State, 2000 (1) ALT (Crl.) 561 (AP) held that the essence of the offence under Section 153-A is promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth residence etc. and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony and if the ingredients of the section are not satisfied, the proceedings are liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The relevant portion is as under: “10. and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony and if the ingredients of the section are not satisfied, the proceedings are liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The relevant portion is as under: “10. To ascertain whether an offence as defined under Section 153(A) of IPC has been committed or not, it is for the Court to examine the words either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations and come to a conclusion whether they have a tendency to promote or attempt to promote on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other group etc., disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities. In the absence of any material as to the actual words uttered by the accused or the acts committed by the accused, the allegations must be held to be extremely vague.” 14. In the present case, at the cost of repetition, the allegations against the petitioner/A-6 is that he contributed for publishing the book in dispute. As held by the Apex Court in the decision one supra, in order to find the accused guilty, the intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence under Section 153-A of IPC. Further, to find the accused guilty under Section 295-A of IPC, the acts complained of shall be with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging religious feeling of any class of citizens of India, insulting its religion or religious beliefs by words etc. In the present case, on a comprehensive reading of the complaint, it is found that the complainant except making omnibus allegations that the heinous act done in series and chain one after the other in a continuous process of plotted conspiracy and mala-fide intention of editorial board, master minds and contributors, to disturb the congenial atmosphere, peace, prosperity and to defame Islamic society; however has not specifically stated as to how the said act complained of against the petitioner, would fall within the ambit of these sections. As has already been noted above, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not produced any material even to prima facie support the allegations made in the complaint. As has already been noted above, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not produced any material even to prima facie support the allegations made in the complaint. Therefore, in my considered view, the allegations against the petitioner are vague and, allowing to continue the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, would amount to abuse of process of law, as the chances of conviction, in the absence of allegations meetings the ingredients of both the sections, are bleak. 15. The Apex Court in Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, AIR 1988 SC 709 , held that as under: “7. The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak, and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at the preliminary stage.” 16. In D.P. Gulati, Manager Accounts, M/s. Jetking Infotrain v. State of Utter Pradesh, AIR 2015 SC 3760 , the Apex Court held that the object of exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice. 17. Apart from the above, I have taken the initiative to know and verify the alleged objectionable contents more particularly at page Nos.54 and 55 of the book in dispute, which is in Telugu. As I do not know reading of Telugu, I have taken the assistance of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 17. Apart from the above, I have taken the initiative to know and verify the alleged objectionable contents more particularly at page Nos.54 and 55 of the book in dispute, which is in Telugu. As I do not know reading of Telugu, I have taken the assistance of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. On hearing the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor about the contents in the said pages, I am of the opinion, they are more focused on freedom of speech and expression and secularism and criticizing the Government is not able to give protection to Taslima, a foreign writer; and they are not in the nature of criticizing the religion of Islam. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also conceded this fact during arguments. Furthermore, as already noted above, no material has been placed by the prosecution even to remotely suggest that the publishing of the book with the compilations as noted above, has promoted enmity between different religions or that it has outraged religious feelings or insulted any religion. In my considered view, the registration of the crime has been in anticipation of any communal disharmony, which admittedly is absent. 18. In similar circumstances, where there was criticism of Hindu religion in a book entitled “Samman Ke Liye Dharma Parivartan Karen” which criticized the social evils of untouchability and reprehensible treatment meted out to the lower castes and the Government has forfeited the said book, a Full Bench of the Allahabad High court in Lali Singh v. State of U.P. 1971 CRL. L.J. 1773, held that rational criticism of religious tenets, couched in restrained language is no offence either under Section 153-A or under Section 295-A of IPC and the forfeiture of the book is not justifiable. The relevant excerpts are as under: “. . Criticism of Hindu religion for its inculcation of the doctrine of untouchability and for the sanction which it has given to reprehensible treatment meted out to the low castes has of recent years been considered perfectly legitimate. Held that in the instant book there was nothing objectionable that might be said to insult Hinduism or to promote disharmony and hatred between different castes so as to be punishable either under Section 153-A or under Section 295-A and the impugned order of its forfeiture was wholly unjustified and unsustainable.” 19. Held that in the instant book there was nothing objectionable that might be said to insult Hinduism or to promote disharmony and hatred between different castes so as to be punishable either under Section 153-A or under Section 295-A and the impugned order of its forfeiture was wholly unjustified and unsustainable.” 19. In view of the above facts and circumstances and for the foregoing reasons, as the allegations made against the petitioner / A-6 are only with regard to making contribution and supporting the publishing of the book, without any specific allegations with reference to any acts of mens rea or any deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings or insulting any religion and that the uncontroverted allegations are vague and do not make out the ingredients of the Sections 153-A and 295-A of IPC; I am of the considered opinion that allowing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law. Having regard to the law laid down in the judgments cited supra and in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I am inclined to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner/A-6. 20. Accordingly, the proceedings pending against the petitioner/A-6 in Crime No. 54 of 2010 on the file of II town Police Station, Khammam District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 153-A and 295-A of I.P.C. are quashed and the criminal petition is allowed. 21. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.