Back
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Saint Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Insan – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. invocation of inherent jurisdiction (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments for quashing the fir (Para 2) |
| 3. opposing arguments against quashing fir (Para 3) |
| 4. determining potential blasphemy under ipc (Para 4) |
| 5. examination of section 295a and requirements for intent. (Para 5) |
| 6. definition and criteria for blasphemy under section 295a (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 7. analysis of discourse context and intent (Para 9 , 10) |
| 8. court's conclusion on lack of malicious intent. (Para 11) |
| 9. evaluation of intent and accuracy of petitioner’s discourse (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 10. jurisdiction to quash unjustified criminal proceedings (Para 15 , 16) |
| 11. conclusion on absence of blasphemous intent (Para 17) |
| 12. order to quash fir (Para 18) |
Judgment
Mrs. Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.:- The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.17 dated 07.03.2023 registered at Police Station Patara, District Jalandhar Rural under Section 295A of the IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Submissions on behalf of the petitioner:-
2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, while praying for quashing of the FIR in question, submits as under:-
2
To establish an offence under Section 295A of the IPC, there must be deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings, which was not evident in the petitioner's discourse.
Outraging religious feelings – Journey from ‘Nar to Narayan’ is not only embedded in ethos of India but is also true to religions born outside India.
The court ruled that self-proclaiming as a religious figure, intending to outraging communal sentiments, justified continued investigation under Section 295A IPC.
Section 295-A IPC requires proof of deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings, which was not established in this case.
The judgment established the importance of protecting artistic freedom and the need for sensitivity in matters of freedom of speech and expression.
The court held that deliberate intention is required to constitute an offense under Section 299 BNS, emphasizing that reckless acts, particularly by public figures, attract legal scrutiny in relation....
Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings, as per Section 299 BNS, necessitate intentional insult to religion, confirming the applicability of cognizable offences in public....
FIR quashed - Through Facebook ID, posted objectionable material - Religious sentiments - Petitioner has shared post of other person, even, contents of FIR does not, prima facie, establish alleged of....
The necessity of prior sanction under Section 196(1) of the CrPC for cognizance of offences under Section 295A of the IPC, and the requirement of proving deliberate and malicious intent to outrage re....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
