JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 173 of 2023 dated 15.06.2023, registered at Police Station, Nalagarh, District, Solan, H.P. for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 295A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, (IPC) and consequential proceedings arising out of it pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalgarh, District Solan, H.P. (learned Trial Court).

2. Briefly stated on the facts giving rise to the present petition are that Sant Rampal Maharaj and his followers Shiv Kumar, Dharam Singh, Lal Chand, Sandeep Kumar, Bihari Lal, Hans Raj, Ramji Dass, Vivek Kumar and other persons were selling the books containing defamatory allegations against Hindu religion named Hindu Dharam Mahaan, Geeta Tera Gyan Amrit, Kabir Parmeshwar, Jeene Ki Raah, Gyan Ganga etc. The informant purchased the books. He found that the book called Hindu Dharma Mahan contained defamatory material against Hindu Gods and Saints. He reported the matter to the police. The police registered the FIR for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 295A of the IPC, and seized the books. It was found that Sant Rampal had written some books which were being distributed by Purshotam Dass, Krishan Singh, Satish Chand, Hawa Singh and Basant Singh. Krishan Singh, Satish Chand and Hawa Singh had died, and the proceedings abated qua them. The police recorded the statements of the witnesses as per their version and filed a charge sheet before the Court after the completion of the investigations.

3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the FIR and initiation of the proceedings, the petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of the FIR and the proceedings arising out of it. It is submitted that an offence punishable under Section 295A of the IPC requires the previous sanction of the Central or the State Government. No sanction has been obtained in the present case, and the proceedings could not have been initiated against the petitioners. The charge sheet relies upon isolated sentences and descriptions appearing in certain pages of the book. The allegations pertain to criticism of Hindu Idol worship, pilgrimage practices, ritualistic devotion and theological narratives. It was nowhere mentioned that the books were distributed with the intent to outrage religious feelings or insult religious beliefs. The secularism enshrined in the Constitution treats all religions alike and displays a benevolent neutrality towards them. The allegations in the FIR and the charge sheet do not constitute the commission of any cognizable offence. Hence, it was prayed that the FIR and consequential proceedings arising out of it be quashed.

4. The petition is opposed by filing a status report reproducing the contents of the charge sheet. It was asserted that a letter was written to District Magistrate Solan on 13.06.2026 for obtaining the prosecution sanction.

5. I have heard M/s Arjun Sheoran and Heena Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State and Ms Dhanwanti, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

6. Mr Arjun Sheoran, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that allegations made in the FIR and the charge sheet do not constitute the commission of any cognizable offence. The informant had picked up stray sentences from the books out of context. The books were widely available, and their distribution does not amount to the commission of any offence. No sanction was obtained, and the letter was written for sanction after the institution of the present proceedings before the Court. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR and consequential proceedings arising out of it be quashed. He relied upon the following judgments in support of his submissions: -

(i) Manoj Rai Vs. State of M.P. (1999) 1 SCC 728;

(ii) Acharya Rajneesh Vs. Naval Thakur (1989) S