SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Bom) 1268

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Prasanna B.Varale, Surendra P.Tavade, JJ.
Mahesh Waman Manjrekar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 596 of 2022 with Writ Petition No. 604 of 2022
Decided On : 01-03-2022

Advocates appeared:
Shirish Gupte, Advocate, Harshad Bhadbhade, Advocate, Yashasvita Apte, Advocate, Aabad Ponda, Advocate, Swapnil Ambure, Advocate, Ravindra Suryawanshi, Advocate, Arpit Choudhary, Advocate, Archis Bhatt, Advocate, Ashish Chavan, Advocate, Jayesh Bhosle, Advocate, Advait Helekar, Advocate, Prathamesh Gaikwad, Advocate, Prakash Salsingkar, Advocate, M.H.Mhatre, Advocate, S.D.Shinde, Advocate, Anil Phole, Advocate

The judgment emphasizes the need to avoid unnecessary arrest and the requirement for police to issue a notice before arrest, as established in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.

Headnote:

Censorship - Movie Trailer - Sec. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C. - The court directed the police to investigate a complaint regarding a movie trailer containing sexually explicit content involving minors, obscene abuses, and violence. The petitioners argued that the trailer was withdrawn and the movie had already been released with necessary censorship. They invoked the judgment of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, emphasizing the need to avoid unnecessary arrest and the requirement for police to issue a notice before arrest.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, director, and producer of a movie, faced a complaint regarding the movie trailer's sexually explicit content involving minors, obscene abuses, and violence. The petitioners argued that the trailer was withdrawn and the movie had already been released with necessary censorship.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners made a case for an interim order and directed the state not to take any coercive steps until the next date of hearing.

Issues: The issues involved the complaint against the movie trailer for sexually explicit content involving minors, obscene abuses, and violence, and the petitioners' argument that the trailer was withdrawn and the movie had already been released with necessary censorship.

Ratio Decidendi: The court invoked the judgment of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, emphasizing the need to avoid unnecessary arrest and the requirement for police to issue a notice before arrest.

Final Decision: The court directed the state not to take any coercive steps until the next date of hearing.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for Petitioners in both petitions, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 and the learned APP for Respondent No.1-State.

2. These are two petitions at the instance of Director and Producer of the movie title as "Nay Varan Bhaat Loncha Kon Nay Konacha". Respondent No. 2 had approached the learned Special Court by submitting an application bearing Misc. Application No. 99 of 2022 raising the grievance in respect of trailer of the said movie displayed on the social media platform and particularly on "YouTube".

3. The submission of Respondent No. 2 before the learned Special Court was that the trailer contains sexually explicit contents involving minors. It also displayed use of obscene abuses, violence, indecent acts by minors and indecent representation of women. Now in the very application Respondent No. 2 herself submits that the said trailer is removed from YouTube, but is still available on the other online platforms and is being circulated. The trailer is downloaded and a CD containing the same, is fled along with complaint.

4. The learned Special Court by referring to the statement made in the application allowed the application and directed Senior Police Inspector of Mahim Police Station to investigate the case as per Sec. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to take appropriate action as per law.

5. Mr. Shirish Gupte, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner (Writ Petition No. 596 of 2022) vehemently submitted that the order passed by the Special Court is nothing but the result of non- application of the mind. Learned Counsel then invited our attention to the statements made in the petition. It is stated in the grounds that the trailer based on which the complaint is lodged is already withdrawn and further the movie is already released. Petitioner further states in the grounds that with an intention to show respect to the views expressed by complainant's association, the Petitioner herein immediately withdrew the said trailer though at the cost of repetition the Petitioner wishes to place it on record that the contents of the same were from the movie duly censored by the Censor Board. There is another specifc statement made in the grounds and clause 'G' which reads as " The Petitioner state that the movie does not contain any porn or involves or depicts a child having any act which will fall within the purview of POCSO Act."

6. The learned Counsel then submitted that apart from all the acts, which have been undertaken by the Petitioner bonafdely, namely removing of the trailer from the social media platform, categorical statement before this Court is that the movie does not contain any porn or involves or depicts a child having any act, which will fall within the purview of POCSO Act. The ofence alleged against the Petitioner provides the maximum punishment of seven years considering the instances where the police authorities in an undue haste were taking resort to an extreme action of efecting arrest. The Apex Court in the judgment of Arnesh Kumar V/s. State of Bihar and Another {(2014) 8 SCC 273 } recorded important observations, our attention is invited to Paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 of the said judgment, read as under:

"9. Another provision i.e. Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C. aimed to avoid unnecessary arrest or threat of arrest looming large on the accused requires to be vitalised. Sec. 41-A as inserted by Sec. 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 (5 of 2009), which is relevant in the context reads as follows:

"41-A. Notice of appearance before police officer.- (1) The police ofcer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 41, issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable ofence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specife

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top