Delhi High Court Upholds Dismissal of FIR Request Against Gallery Over Offensive Art Paintings

Delhi High Court Upholds Dismissal of FIR Request Against Gallery Over Offensive Art Paintings

The High Court of Delhi has affirmed the dismissal of a petition seeking the mandatory registration of an FIR against the Delhi Art Gallery and its directors. In a ruling delivered by Justice Amit Mahajan, the Court determined that because all relevant material evidence—including the paintings in question and CCTV footage—had already been secured, there was no necessity for police intervention at the pre-cognizance stage.

Background of the Dispute

The petitioner, Amita Sachdeva, alleged that she encountered paintings by the late artist Maqbool Fida Hussain at an exhibition titled “Hussain: The Timeless Modernist” that depicted Hindu deities in a derogatory manner. Following her complaint to the police and subsequent applications before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at the Patiala House Courts, she sought an FIR under Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

While the Trial Court directed that the exhibition’s CCTV footage and the paintings be seized, it ultimately refused to order the registration of an FIR, opting instead to treat the matter as a complaint case. The petitioner’s revision plea was later dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, leading her to approach the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 .

Legal Analysis and Judicial Oversight

The High Court emphasized that the power of a Magistrate to order an investigation under the new criminal code is a discretionary one. Citing precedents such as * Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh * and * Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. *, Justice Mahajan noted that the court must apply its judicial mind to determine if an investigation by the state is actually required to "dig out" evidence not otherwise available to the complainant.

The Court observed that the petitioner had requested a "fishing and roving inquiry." Because the paintings were already held in the police Malkhana and the exhibition organizers had admitted to their display, the Court held that the complainant had sufficient material to support her case during a formal trial.

Key Observations

The judgment highlighted several pivotal points regarding the limits of police intervention in private disputes:

• "It is thus not necessary that in every case where a complaint has been filed... the Magistrate should direct the police to investigate the crime merely because an application has also been filed."
• "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."
• "Questions of authenticity, intent, or possible tampering can be considered at the time of trial, and if any further assistance is required, the learned Trial Court retains the power... to requisition police aid."
• "Only those individuals who personally came across the alleged offensive material and whose religious sentiments were actually offended, are entitled to seek recourse under the said provision."

Implications of the Ruling

By dismissing the petition, the High Court has reinforced the principle that the judiciary should not act as a "post office" for directing police investigations in matters where evidence is already within the reach of the parties. The ruling clarifies that the transition to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita requires higher accountability and a more thorough application of judicial mind before triggering the criminal investigation machinery. The case will now proceed as a complaint case in the Trial Court, where the petitioner may present her evidence formally.