The Allahabad High Court has denied a plea to dismiss a criminal case against six Muslim individuals accused of carrying the tiranga adorned with Arabic verses during a religious procession. The court has deemed this act prima facie an insult to the national flag, warning that such incidents could be exploited to exacerbate communal tensions and deepen misunderstandings between communities.
Justice Vinod Diwakar, who presided over the case, emphasised the gravity of the act, stating, “This act is prima facie akin to dishonouring the national flag. The carrying of the tricolour with Arabic verses inscribed on it violates Section 2 of the National Honour Act.” He underscored the symbolic significance of the national flag, noting, “The flag of India represents national unity and diversity, transcending religious, ethnic, and cultural differences.”
The case against the accused was filed at the Jalaun police station in the Jalaun district. The prosecution alleges that the individuals were seen carrying the tricolour with Arabic verses during a religious procession. The plea to quash the proceedings argued that the investigation failed to confirm whether the flag in question was the national tricolour or another three-coloured flag. It was also contended that there was no concrete evidence showing that the national flag had been harmed.
The defence further claimed that the case was based on fabricated facts and that witness statements were obtained under duress.
In response to these arguments, the state provided witness statements affirming that the tricolour indeed had Arabic Islamic verses written on it. Justice Diwakar remarked, “The arguments presented by the accused involve factual questions that can only be adequately addressed by a trial court. The appreciation of evidence and credibility is beyond the scope of Section 482 of the CrPC.”
The court rejected the plea to dismiss the case, clarifying that decisions on factual issues and the evaluation of evidence fall outside the jurisdiction of Section 482 of the CrPC. Justice Diwakar concluded, “Given the material on record, it cannot be assumed that the criminal proceedings were initiated with malice or with the intent to harass the accused for personal or private reasons.”
