Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.
Harjinder Singh @ Jinda & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
C.R.R. No. 1036 of 2024
Decided On : 13-06-2024
Religious Sentiments - Criminal Revision - IPC 295-A, CrPC 196(1) - The court discussed the essential elements of Section 295-A IPC, emphasizing the need for malicious intent to outrage religious feelings, and the requirement of government sanction for prosecution under this section, ultimately affirming the dismissal of the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a complaint against the accused for allegedly hurting Sikh religious sentiments by claiming a historical inaccuracy during a performance. The police filed a cancellation report, which was accepted by the trial court, leading to the petitioners' appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no evidence of malicious intent or deliberate insult by the accused, noting that the trial court's dismissal of the protest petition was justified and based on a lack of incriminating material.
Issues: Whether the accused's statements constituted an offence under Section 295-A IPC and if the trial court's acceptance of the cancellation report was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for an offence under Section 295-A IPC, there must be deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings, which was not established in this case.
Result: The petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.
JUDGMENT :
Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, J.
This criminal revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners with a prayer for setting aside the order dated 29.11.2022 vide which the cancellation report filed by respondent No.2 has been accepted as well as the order dated 22.02.2024 whereby the SDJM, Nakodar has dismissed the complaint/protest petition which was filed by the petitioners against acceptance of the cancellation report.
2. Brief facts of the case are that a video went viral in which the accused Gurdas Maan who, while performing in one of the Programmes/Mela, stated that Laddi Shah is the descendant of Sri Guru Amar Dass. Such an act of accused, being actually and historically false, offended the religious sentiments of Sikh masses and a complaint for commission of offence punishable under Section 295-A IPC was filed by the petitioners. Thereafter, the instant FIR was lodged against the accused. However, cancellation report was filed in the FIR as a result of which the petitioner moved protest petition/complaint before SDJM, who vide impugned order dated 22.02.2024 has dismissed the same prompting the petitioners to approach this Court.
3. It is averred that it was the duty of respondents No.1 and 2 to investigate the matter fairly as per law and submit the final report under Section 173 (2) CrPC within the limitation period prescribed in the Code but eventually, after the filing of the complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC on 09.02.2022, notice was issued to the State to which respondent No.1 appeared before the Court and requested for filing cancellation report without even giving any intimation/notice to the petitioners which is unlawful and illegally done so as to save the skin of the accused Gurdas Maan moreso, when the evidence was readily available with the police and the complaint was lodged on the basis of a video.
4. It is vehemently urged that the accused Gurdass Mann while addressing a large crowd of thousands of people stated that Laddi Shah is a descendant of Sri Guru Amardass Ji and he is four times more powerful than Sh. Guru Amardas Ji as is evident from Ex.C6 wherein the accused Gurdass Mann deliberately and intentionally insulted the Gurus of Sikhs community (Sikh Panth) and also Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji gravely hurting their religious sentiments.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also emphasized the fact that Laddi Shah is known to consume intoxicants and he also promotes the same to his followers which is directly against the Sikh’s religious principles (“Sikh Sidhant atte Sikh Rahet Maryada de ulat ja kar ke ek deredar nashedi ate dehtari manukh nu guru sahib to uppar darshon di koshis kiti”) and further in the last lines of the video the same is mentioned in Ex.C6 (transcription) wherein accused Gurdass Mann has stated that “Amb da butta jithe lugga hove uthe dujja butta nahi lug sakda, par eh butta osse ghar vich lugga osse ansh-vansh vich luga atte bhalla nu satkaar ditta” in this way he stated that Laddi Shah is a descendant of Sri Guru Amardas Ji. Also Gurdas Mann while addressing such crowd recited “pehli pori of Anand Sahib Bani” which is “anand bheya meri maye satguru mai paya” while stating this he pointed towards Dera Mukhi whereas in Gurbani the word Satguru is used to refer one pious God whereas Laddi Shah is a person who publicly consumed intoxicants, remained unclothed which is against the Sikh principles and as such his referral of Dera Mukhi as Satguru gravely hurt the religious sentiments.
6. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that after the alleged video went viral, the accused Gurdas Mann, on his facebook page, uploaded a video in which he gave an explanation while apologizing for the alleged video. The trial court has rightly dismissed the protest petition of the petitioners inasmuch as the trial court found no material on record to suggest that the accused had intended to hurt the religious feelings of any class of society and therefore, the present petition deserves
Section 295-A IPC requires proof of deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings, which was not established in this case.
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....
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.
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....
The court ruled that self-proclaiming as a religious figure, intending to outraging communal sentiments, justified continued investigation under Section 295A IPC.
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.
The judgment established the importance of protecting artistic freedom and the need for sensitivity in matters of freedom of speech and expression.
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
