Prayagraj : The Allahabad high court has refused to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against six Muslim men, who had allegedly carried a Tiranga on which purported Quranic verses (Ayat and Kalma) were inscribed, during a religious procession in UP’s Jalaun district in 2023. Dismissing the petition filed by Ghulamuddin and five others, Justice Vinod Diwakar said that the applicants’ act was punishable under the Flag Code of India, 2002, and there was a violation of section 2 of the Prevention of Insults of National Honour Act, 1971 by the applicants. Stressing that the Tiranga, India’s national flag, symbolizes the unity and diversity of the nation, transcending religious, ethnic and cultural differences, the court observed, “It is a unifying emblem representing the collective identity and sovereignty of India.
Act of disrespect towards the Tiranga can have far-reaching social cultural implications, particularly in a diverse society like India.” The court also added that such incidents could be exploited by those who sought to create communal discord or fuel misunderstandings between different communities. Hence, the court emphasised that it was crucial to recognize that the actions of a few individuals should not be used to stigmatize an entire community.
The UP Police had booked the accused, Ghulamuddin and five others, under section 2 of the National Honour Act, 1971 and a criminal case was registered against them in Jalaun. The police filed a chargesheet against them on October 4, 2023. Subsequently, the trial court took cognizance of the chargesheet on May 14, 2024, and issued summons to them.
Later, they filed the present application under section 482 (inherent powers of high court) requesting the court to quash the entire criminal proceedings against them. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the investigation did not suggest whether the flag mentioned in the FIR is a Tiranga or any other flag having three colours and that the police could not bring any evidence on record to suggest that there was any mischief caused to the national flag as specified in sections 2 and 3 of the 1971 Act. It was also argued that the police subsequently planted the national flag after the FIR was registered and that the applicants were falsely implicated in the instant case.
On the other hand, the state counsel argued that the applicants' names were mentioned in the statements of police constables, who were police witnesses. The court in its order dated July 29 found that no such illegality, perversity or any other substantial error could be pointed out in the impugned summoning order to warrant any interference by the court and dismissed the petition..
