{"id":26225,"date":"2006-08-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-08-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-anr-vs-pastor-p-raju-on-4-august-2006"},"modified":"2015-06-08T16:55:57","modified_gmt":"2015-06-08T11:25:57","slug":"state-of-karnataka-anr-vs-pastor-p-raju-on-4-august-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-anr-vs-pastor-p-raju-on-4-august-2006","title":{"rendered":"State Of Karnataka & Anr vs Pastor P. Raju on 4 August, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Karnataka & Anr vs Pastor P. Raju on 4 August, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: G P Mathur<\/div>\n
Bench: G.P. Mathur, Dalveer Bhandari<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  814 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nState of Karnataka & Anr\n\nRESPONDENT:\nPastor P. Raju\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/08\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nG.P. Mathur & Dalveer Bhandari\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\n(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5450 of 2005)<\/p>\n
G. P. MATHUR, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThis appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the
\njudgment and order dated 23.2.2005 of Karnataka High Court by
\nwhich initiation of criminal proceedings against the respondent under
\nSection 153-B IPC were quashed in exercise of jurisdiction under
\nSection 482 Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tOne R.N. Lokesha son of R.S. Narayanappa resident of
\nRamapura, Channapatna, lodged an FIR alleging that at about 7.30
\np.m. on 14.1.2005, he along with some other persons was celebrating
\nSankranthi festival when the respondent Pastor P. Raju, who is a
\nmember of Christian community, came there and made an appeal to
\nthem to get converted to Christian religion where they would get
\nmany benefits and facilities which were not available to them in
\nHindu religion to which they belong.  It is also alleged that many
\npersons who were present there resented the appeal made by the
\nrespondent and strongly opposed the plea or assertion for their
\nconversion from Hindu religion to Christian religion.  On the basis of
\nthe FIR, a case as Crime No.8 of 2005 was registered under Section
\n153-B IPC at the concerned police station. The respondent was
\narrested on 15.1.2005 and was produced before a Magistrate on the
\nsame day who remanded him to judicial custody as no application for
\nbail had been filed.  Subsequently, a bail application was moved under
\nSection 436 Cr.P.C. before  the learned Magistrate which was rejected
\non the ground that the offence under Section 153-B IPC being a non-
\nbailable offence, the power under the aforesaid provision could not be
\nexercised as the said provision empowered the Court to grant bail in
\nbailable offences only. The respondent filed a petition under Section
\n482 Cr.P.C. on 27.1.2005 for quashing of the proceedings initiated
\nagainst him under Section 153-B IPC in case Crime No.8 of 2005.
\nThis petition was allowed by the High Court by the order under
\nchallenge and the entire proceedings initiated against the respondent
\nwere quashed.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe principal submission which was made before the High
\nCourt on behalf of the respondent was that before initiating any
\nproceedings under Section 153-B IPC, the police ought to have
\nobtained previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State
\nGovernment or of the District Magistrate as required by Section
\n196(1-A) Cr.P.C. and in the absence of such a sanction having been
\nobtained, the proceedings initiated against the respondent were illegal
\nand without jurisdiction.  After hearing counsel for the parties, the
\nlearned judge framed the question for consideration in the following
\nmanner :-\n<\/p>\n
“Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel
\nappearing for the petitioner and the learned H.C.G.P. for
\nthe respondent\/State, the point that arises for my
\nconsideration and decision is whether initiation of
\ncriminal proceedings against the petitioner is bad in law
\nand whether prior sanction to prosecute a person who
\ntries to instigate Hindus to convert into Christianity
\nrequires any prior sanction to register a case and arrest
\nthe accused under Section 153-B (1) of IPC ?”\n<\/p>\n
(emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
5.\tThe High Court has held that as the investigating agency had
\nnot obtained previous sanction of the Central Government or of the
\nState Government or of the District Magistrate as required by Section
\n196(1-A) Cr.P.C., the initiation of criminal proceedings against the
\nrespondent is bad in law and consequently it was liable to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tWe have heard learned counsel for the appellant State of
\nKarnataka, learned counsel for the respondent Pastor P. Raju and have
\nperused the record.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tThe heading of Chapter XIV of Code of Criminal Procedure is
\n“Conditions Requisite For Initiation Of Proceedings”.    The first
\nprovision in this Chapter is Section 190 and it deals with the power of
\nthe Magistrate to take cognizance of offences.  There are some other
\nprovisions in this Chapter which create an embargo on the power of
\nthe Court to take cognizance of offences committed by persons
\nenumerated therein except on the complaint in writing of certain
\nspecified persons or with the previous sanction of certain specified
\nauthorities.  Section 196(1-A) Cr.P.C. with which we are concerned
\nhere reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
“196(1-A).\tNo Court shall take cognizance of <\/p>\n
(a)\tany offence punishable under Section 153-B or
\nsub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of Section 505 of
\nthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), or<\/p>\n
(b)\ta criminal conspiracy to commit such offence.
\nexcept with the previous sanction of the Central
\nGovernment or of the State Government or of the District
\nMagistrate.”\n<\/p>\n
\tA plain reading of this provision will show that no Court can
\ntake cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 153-B or sub-
\nsection (2) or sub-section (3) of Section 505 of Indian Penal Code  or
\na criminal conspiracy to commit such offence except with the
\nprevious sanction of the Central Government or of the State
\nGovernment or of the District Magistrate. The opening words of the
\nSection are “No Court shall take cognizance” and consequently the
\nbar created by the provision is against taking of cognizance by the
\nCourt.  There is no bar against registration of a criminal case or
\ninvestigation by the police agency or submission of a report by the
\npolice on completion of investigation, as contemplated by Section 173
\nCr.P.C.  If a criminal case is registered, investigation of the offence is
\ndone and the police submits a report as a result of such investigation
\nbefore a Magistrate without the previous sanction of the Central
\nGovernment or of the State Government or of the District Magistrate,
\nthere will be no violation of Section 196(1-A) Cr.P.C. and no
\nillegality of any kind would be committed.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tAfter the FIR had been lodged and a criminal case had been
\nregistered against the respondent under Section 153-B IPC, the police
\narrested him as the offence disclosed was a cognizable offence.
\nThereafter, the respondent was produced before a Magistrate and the
\nMagistrate remanded him to judicial custody.   The High Court seems
\nto have taken the view that as the learned Magistrate remanded the
\nrespondent to judicial custody when he was produced before him in
\naccordance with Section 167 Cr.P.C., it amounted to taking
\ncognizance of the offence.  The question that arises is whether passing
\nof an order of remand would amount to taking of cognizance of the
\noffence.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tSeveral provisions in Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure use the word “cognizance”.  The very first Section in the
\nsaid Chapter, viz., Section 190 lays down how cognizance of offences
\nwill be taken by a Magistrate.  However, the word “cognizance”  has
\nnot been defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure.  The dictionary
\nmeaning of the word “cognizance” is –  ‘judicial hearing of a matter’.
\nThe meaning of the word has been explained by judicial
\npronouncements and it has acquired a definite connotation.  The
\nearliest decision of this Court on the point is R.R. Chari v. State of
\nU.P. AIR<\/a> 1951 SC 207, wherein it was held :-\n<\/p>\n
“Taking cognizance does not involve any formal action
\nor indeed action of any kind but occurs as soon as a
\nMagistrate as such applies his mind to the suspected
\ncommission of an offence.”\n<\/p>\n
In Darshan Singh Ram Kishan v. State of Maharashtra AIR<\/a>
\n1971 SC 2372, while considering Section 190 of the Code of 1908, it
\nwas observed that “taking cognizance does not involve any formal
\naction or indeed action of any kind but occurs as soon as a Magistrate
\nas such applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence.
\nCognizance, therefore, takes place at a point when a magistrate first
\ntakes judicial notice of an offence.  This is the position whether the
\nmagistrate takes cognizance of an offence on a complaint, or on a
\npolice report, or upon information of a person other than a police
\nofficer.”  In Narayandas Bhagwandas Madhavdas v. The State of
\nWest Bengal AIR<\/a> 1959 SC 1118 it was held that before it can be said
\nthat any Magistrate has taken cognizance of any offence under Section
\n190(1)(a) Criminal Procedure Code, he must not only have applied his
\nmind to the contents of the petition but must have done so for the
\npurpose of proceeding in a particular way as indicated in the
\nsubsequent provisions of the Chapter  proceeding under Section 200
\nand thereafter sending it for inquiry and report under Section 202.   It
\nwas  observed that there is no special charm or any magical formula in
\nthe expression “taking cognizance” which merely means judicial
\napplication of the mind of the Magistrate to the facts mentioned in the
\ncomplaint with a view to taking further action.  It was also observed
\nthat what Section 190 contemplates is that the Magistrate takes
\ncognizance once he makes himself fully conscious and aware of the
\nallegations made in the complaint and decides to examine or test the
\nvalidity of the said allegations.   The Court then referred to the three
\nsituations enumerated in sub-section (1) of Section 190 upon which a
\nMagistrate could take cognizance.  Similar view was expressed in
\nKishun Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar (1993) 2 SCC 16 that when the
\nMagistrate takes notice of the accusations and applies his mind to the
\nallegations made in the complaint or police report or information and
\non being satisfied that the allegations, if proved, would constitute an
\noffence, decides to initiate judicial proceedings against the alleged
\noffender, he is said to have taken cognizance of the offence.  In State
\nof West Bengal v. Mohd. Khalid & Ors. (1995) 1 SCC 684 the Court
\nafter taking note of the fact that the expression had not been defined in
\nthe Code held :-\n<\/p>\n
“……… In its broad and literal sense, it means taking
\nnotice of an offence. This would include the intention of
\ninitiating judicial proceedings against the offender in
\nrespect of that offence and taking steps to see whether
\nthere is any basis for initiating judicial proceedings or for
\nother purposes.  The word ‘cognizance’ indicates the
\npoint when a Magistrate or a Judge first takes judicial
\nnotice of an offence.  It is entirely a different thing from
\ninitiation of proceedings; rather it is the condition
\nprecedent to the initiation of proceedings by the
\nMagistrate or the Judge.  Cognizance is taken of cases
\nand not of persons.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is necessary to mention here that taking cognizance of an
\noffence is not the same thing as issuance of process.  Cognizance is
\ntaken at the initial stage when the Magistrate applies his judicial mind
\nto the facts mentioned in a complaint or to police report or upon
\ninformation received from any other person that an offence has been
\ncommitted.   The issuance of process is at a subsequent stage when
\nafter considering the material placed before it the Court decides to
\nproceed against the offenders against whom a prima facie case is
\nmade out.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tIn the present case neither any complaint had been filed nor any
\npolice report had been submitted nor any information had been given
\nby any person other than the police officer before the Magistrate
\ncompetent to take cognizance of the offence.  After the FIR had been
\nlodged and a case had been  registered  under Section 153-B IPC, the
\nrespondent was arrested by the police and thereafter he had been
\nproduced before the Magistrate.  The Magistrate had merely passed an
\norder remanding him to judicial custody. Section 167 Cr.P.C.  finds
\nplace in Chapter XII which deals with Information To The Police And
\nTheir Powers To Investigate.  This Section gives the procedure which
\nhas to be followed when investigation cannot be completed within
\ntwenty-four hours and requires that whenever any person is arrested
\nand detained in custody and it appears that the investigation cannot be
\ncompleted within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by Section 57
\nand there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information
\nis well founded, he shall be forthwith transmitted to the nearest
\nJudicial Magistrate along with copy of the entries in the diary.  Sub-
\nsection (2) of Section 167 will show that even a Magistrate who has
\nno jurisdiction to try the case can authorize the detention of the
\naccused.  A limited role has to be performed by the Judicial
\nMagistrate to whom the accused has been forwarded, viz., to authorize
\nhis detention.  This is anterior to Section 190 Cr.P.C. which confers
\npower upon a Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence.  Therefore,
\nan order remanding an accused to judicial custody does not amount to
\ntaking cognizance of an offence.   In such circumstances Section
\n196(1-A) Cr.P.C. can have no application at all and the High Court
\nclearly erred in quashing the proceedings on the ground that previous
\nsanction of the Central Government or of the State Government or of
\nthe District Magistrate had not been obtained.  It is important to note
\nthat on the view taken by the High Court, no person accused of an
\noffence, which is of the nature which requires previous sanction of a
\nspecified authority before taking of cognizance by the Court, can ever
\nbe arrested nor such an offence can be investigated by the police.  The
\nspecified authority empowered to grant sanction does so after
\napplying his mind to the material collected during the course of
\ninvestigation.  There is no occasion for grant of sanction soon after the
\nFIR is lodged nor such a power can be exercised before completion of
\ninvestigation and collection of evidence.  Therefore, the whole
\npremise on the basis of which the proceedings have been quashed by
\nthe High Court is wholly erroneous in law and is liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
11. \tThere is another aspect of the matter which deserves notice.
\nThe FIR in the case was lodged on 15.1.2005 and the petition under
\nSection 482 Cr.P.C. was filed within 12 days on 27.1.2005 when the
\ninvestigation had just commenced.   The petition was allowed by the
\nHigh Court on 23.2.2005 when the investigation was still under
\nprogress.   No report as contemplated by Section 173 Cr.P.C. had been
\nsubmitted by the incharge of the police station concerned to the
\nMagistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence.   Section
\n482 Cr.P.C. saves inherent powers of the High Court and such a
\npower can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any Court
\nor otherwise to secure the ends of justice.  This power can be
\nexercised to quash the criminal proceedings pending in any Court but
\nthe power cannot be exercised to interfere with the statutory power of
\nthe police to conduct investigation in a cognizable offence.   This
\nquestion has been examined in detail in Union of India v. Prakash P.
\nHinduja & Anr.<\/a> (2003) 6 SCC 195, where after referring to King
\nEmperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad AIR 1945 PC 18, H.N. Rishbud &
\nInder Singh v. The State of Delhi AIR<\/a> 1955 SC 196, State of West
\nBengal v. SN Basak AIR<\/a> 1963 SC 447, Abhinandan  Jha & Ors.  v.
\nDinesh Mishra AIR<\/a> 1968 SC 117 and State of Bihar & Anr. v. JAC
\nSaldanha & Ors.<\/a> (1980) 1 SCC 554, it was observed as under in para
\n20 of the reports :-\n<\/p>\n
“20.\tThus  the legal position is absolutely clear and also
\nsettled by judicial authorities that the Court would not
\ninterfere with the investigation or during the course of
\ninvestigation which would mean from the time of the
\nlodging of the First Information Report till the
\nsubmission of the report by the officer in charge of police
\nstation in court under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.,   this field
\nbeing exclusively reserved  for the investigating agency.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThis being the settled legal position, the High Court ought not
\nto have interfered with and quashed the entire proceedings in exercise
\nof power conferred by Section 482 Cr.P.C. when the matter was still
\nat the investigation stage.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tIn the concluding paragraph of the judgment under challenge,
\nthe High Court has also observed that considering the facts and
\ncircumstances and the allegations made in the complaint it could be
\nsaid that the initiation of criminal proceedings is abuse of process of
\nCourt and miscarriage of justice.  No reasons in support of the
\naforesaid observation have been given.  As already stated, the case
\nwas still under investigation and the police was in the process of
\ncollecting evidence. The sweeping remark made by the High Court in
\nthe circumstances of the case was wholly unjustified.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tFor the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is allowed and the
\njudgment and order dated 23.2.2005 of the High Court is set aside.  It
\nis made clear that any observation made in this order is only for the
\nlimited purpose of deciding the appeal and shall not be construed as
\nan expression of opinion on the merits of the case.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Karnataka & Anr vs Pastor P. Raju on 4 August, 2006 Author: G P Mathur Bench: G.P. Mathur, Dalveer Bhandari CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 814 of 2006 PETITIONER: State of Karnataka & Anr RESPONDENT: Pastor P. Raju DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/08\/2006 BENCH: G.P. Mathur & Dalveer Bhandari JUDGMENT: J […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-26225","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Karnataka & Anr vs Pastor P. Raju on 4 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-anr-vs-pastor-p-raju-on-4-august-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Karnataka & Anr vs Pastor P. Raju on 4 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-anr-vs-pastor-p-raju-on-4-august-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-08T11:25:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-anr-vs-pastor-p-raju-on-4-august-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-anr-vs-pastor-p-raju-on-4-august-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Karnataka & Anr vs Pastor P. Raju on 4 August, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-08T11:25:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-anr-vs-pastor-p-raju-on-4-august-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2778,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-anr-vs-pastor-p-raju-on-4-august-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-anr-vs-pastor-p-raju-on-4-august-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-anr-vs-pastor-p-raju-on-4-august-2006\",\"name\":\"State Of Karnataka & Anr vs Pastor P. Raju on 4 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-08T11:25:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-anr-vs-pastor-p-raju-on-4-august-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-anr-vs-pastor-p-raju-on-4-august-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-anr-vs-pastor-p-raju-on-4-august-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Karnataka & Anr vs Pastor P. Raju on 4 August, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Karnataka & Anr vs Pastor P. Raju on 4 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-anr-vs-pastor-p-raju-on-4-august-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Karnataka & Anr vs Pastor P. Raju on 4 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-anr-vs-pastor-p-raju-on-4-august-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-08T11:25:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-anr-vs-pastor-p-raju-on-4-august-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-anr-vs-pastor-p-raju-on-4-august-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Karnataka & Anr vs Pastor P. Raju on 4 August, 2006","datePublished":"2006-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-08T11:25:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-anr-vs-pastor-p-raju-on-4-august-2006"},"wordCount":2778,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-anr-vs-pastor-p-raju-on-4-august-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-anr-vs-pastor-p-raju-on-4-august-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-anr-vs-pastor-p-raju-on-4-august-2006","name":"State Of Karnataka & Anr vs Pastor P. Raju on 4 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-08T11:25:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-anr-vs-pastor-p-raju-on-4-august-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-anr-vs-pastor-p-raju-on-4-august-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-anr-vs-pastor-p-raju-on-4-august-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Karnataka & Anr vs Pastor P. Raju on 4 August, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26225","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26225"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26225\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26225"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26225"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26225"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}