Delhi High Court Denies FIR Registration Against Art Gallery Over Alleged Offensive Religious Paintings - 2025-09-10

Delhi High Court Denies FIR Registration Against Art Gallery Over Alleged Offensive Religious Paintings

In a significant ruling regarding the threshold for police intervention in private disputes, the High Court of Delhi has upheld a trial court's decision to treat a complaint against a Delhi-based art gallery as a private complaint case rather than ordering the registration of an FIR. Justice Amit Mahajan presided over the matter, determining that the existing evidence was sufficient to proceed without the immediate involvement of the police machinery.

Case Background

The petition was filed by Amita Sachdeva, who alleged that while visiting the exhibition "Hussain: The Timeless Modernist" at the Delhi Art Gallery, she encountered paintings by the late artist Maqbool Fida Hussain that she found derogatory to Hindu deities. Following the filing of her complaint, the police conducted an inquiry and seized the relevant CCTV footage and the paintings in question. The Trial Court, while declining the request to register an FIR under Section 175 (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ), 2023, directed that the proceedings move forward as a complaint case with notice issued to the accused.

The Arguments

The petitioner argued that the exhibition had potential to incite religious discord and that a police investigation was necessary to perform forensic verification of the artwork, investigate the gallery's intent, and examine alleged tampering with CCTV footage. She contended that such technical requirements exceeded the capacity of an individual complainant.

Conversely, counsel for the respondents argued that the controversy surrounding the artist's work was historical and that the case required judicial scrutiny rather than a criminal police probe. Crucially, it was noted that because the paintings and digital evidence had already been secured by the police, the necessity for a fresh investigation to "dig out" evidence was non-existent.

Legal Analysis

The High Court emphasized that the power to order an FIR under Section 175 (3) of the BNSS is a discretionary, judicial exercise, not a mechanical one. Relying on established precedents such as * Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh * and * Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. *, the Court held that a Magistrate must apply their judicial mind to determine if a cognizable offense is disclosed and whether police assistance is truly required for evidence collection.

Justice Mahajan noted that the petitioner sought a "fishing and roving inquiry," which the law does not support. The court clarified that the presence of the paintings and evidence before the trial court meant that the judicial process could examine the merits of the allegations directly.

Key Observations

The judgment highlighted several pivotal points regarding the court's approach:

• "The Magistrate is not expected to mechanically direct investigation by the police without first examining whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, investigation by the State machinery is actually required or not."
• "At this stage, no specialised police investigation is necessary to ascertain the existence of the offence. Questions of authenticity, intent, or possible tampering can be considered at the time of trial."
• "An offence relating to the outraging of religious feelings, such as the one alleged in the present case, must be found on a direct impact on the complainant himself."

Court’s Decision

The High Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the trial court's decision to proceed via a complaint case was correct. By securing the physical evidence, the lower court had already ensured that the material for trial was preserved. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s stance that police intervention should be reserved for cases where expert investigation is strictly necessary, preventing the use of the criminal process for routine disputes that can be adjudicated through standard trial procedures.