Suspension of two policemen withdrawn, inspectors' fate in limbo

January 21, 2012

Sullia, January 21: The future of the circle inspector and the sub inspector suspended following last month's fracas between the Sangh Parivar activists and the police in Sullia still hangs in balance as two police constables who faced disciplinary action in connection with the incident have been reinstated.

On December 14, 2011, the police had rounded up 17 BJP workers who were allegedly involved in throwing stones at the Sullia police station in protest against the alleged police inaction in a case of moral policing.

Following an inquiry conducted by Bipin Gopakrishna, the Additional Director General of Police, two policemen, a sub inspector and a circle inspector were suspended. The wives of the suspended policemen had staged a protest against the disciplinary action taken against their husbands.

They had also threatened to launch a hunger strike in front of the police station. However, following assurances from higher police officers they had withdrawn their protest. They had also thought of staging a mammoth protest in Sullia by involving the wives of all the personnel of the Puttur subdivision.

The suspension of the two constables Skariya and Ramesh has since been withdrawn. But they have been transferred to Puttur traffic police station and Bantwal town police station respectively.

However, the suspension order issued against Circle Inspector Tharanath and Sub Inspector Ravikumar still stays. Although Tharanath was not present during the stand-off between the police and the Sangh Parivar workers, he was suspended as he did not heed to the advice of the higher officers.

Interestingly, the Sangh Parivar activists had not filed any complaint against Tharanath during the inquiry by Mr. Gopalakrishna. It is also said that the saffron outfits were not too keen on taking disciplinary action against him. Now that the suspension of the two police constables have been withdrawn, the BJP workers of Sullia are said to be unhappy about the way things are moving.

Comments

Add new comment

Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.

HC refuses to quash probe against Mangaluru WhatsApp admin over offensive posts

News Network

February 1,2026

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash an investigation against a WhatsApp group administrator accused of allowing the circulation of obscene and offensive images depicting Hindutva politicians and idols in 2021.

Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that, prima facie, the ingredients of the offence under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code were made out. “The offence under Section 295A of the IPC is met to every word of its ingredient, albeit prima facie,” the judge said.

The petitioner, Sirajuddin, a resident of Belthangady taluk in Dakshina Kannada district, had challenged the FIR registered against him at the CEN (Cyber, Economics and Narcotics) police station, Mangaluru, for offences under Section 295A of the IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. Section 295A relates to punishment for deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens.

According to the complaint filed by K Jayaraj Salian, also a resident of Belthangady taluk, he received a WhatsApp group link from an unknown source and was added to the group after accessing it. The group reportedly had six administrators and around 250 participants, where obscene and offensive images depicting Hindu deities and certain political figures were allegedly circulated repeatedly.

Sirajuddin was arrested in connection with the case and later released on bail on February 16, 2021. He argued before the court that he was being selectively targeted, while other administrators—including the creator of the group—were neither arrested nor investigated. He also contended that the Magistrate could not have taken cognisance of the offence under Section 295A without prior sanction under Section 196(1) of the CrPC.

Rejecting the argument, Justice Nagaprasanna held that prior sanction is required only at the stage of taking cognisance, and not at the stage of registration of the crime or during investigation.

The judge noted that the State had produced the entire investigation material before the court. “A perusal of the material reveals depictions of Hindu deities in an extraordinarily obscene, demeaning and profane manner. The content is such that its reproduction in a judicial order would itself be inappropriate,” the court said, adding that the material, on its face, had the tendency to outrage religious feelings and disturb communal harmony.

Observing that the case was still at the investigation stage, the court said it could not interdict the probe at this juncture. However, it expressed concern that the investigating officer appeared to have not proceeded uniformly against all administrators. The court clarified that if the investigation revealed the active involvement of any member in permitting the circulation of such content, they must also be proceeded against.

“At this investigative stage, any further observation by this Court would be unnecessary,” the order concluded.

Comments