Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, JJ.
Ritesh Sidhwani And Another – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others – Respondent
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 851, 1665 of 2021
Decided on : 10-12-2021
Information Technology Act - Section 67-A - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 173(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 295-A, 504, 505 and 34 -Anti-social and criminal place depicting illicit relations in the family, abusive language and caste-based animosity - Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs - Quash of F.I.R. - Allegations levelled in FIR against accused persons and OTT Platform Company Web Series Amazon Prime, are that Mirzapur is the place of Goddess Vindhyavasini which is centre of the belief and inspiration for entire world and informant is a native resident of Mirzapur. Recently the informant came to know that a series titled 'Mirzapur' is being web casted on OTT platform Amazon prime and when he watched some episodes he was shocked because against his expectations Mirzapur is presented as an anti-social and criminal place depicting illicit relations in family, abusive language and caste-based animosity - Grievance of petitioner is that in web series ‘Mirzapur’ name of city Mirzapur has been used and an anti-social and criminal picture of city has been presented by depicting illicit family relations, abusive language and caste-based animosity which is far away from social structure and normal life of the common man of Mirzapur.
Finding of the Court :
There is no allegation in the entire F.I.R. that any content shown in the Series portrays any particular religion in a bad light and which can possibly hurt the religious feelings of a class of citizens. Even as per the averments made in the First Information Report, it is the informant alone whose religious, social and regional sentiments have been hurt by the web series and not those of any class of citizens. There is nothing on record to indicated that besides the informant, the religious beliefs of any class of citizens were hurt by the web series Mirzapur and what to say about the same having been done with deliberate and malicious intention - No word can be ignored from the phrase “sexually explicit act or conduct” occurring in Section 67 A of the IT Act and if the act or conduct shown in the Series does not contain sexually explicit act and it shows the same only in an implied manner, the same would nor attract the provisions of Section 67 A of the IT Act - Court is satisfied that as per the averments made in the impugned F.I.R., no offence under Sections 295A, 504 and 505 of the Penal Code and Section 67 A of the IT Act is made out.
Result: Writ Petitions allowed
JUDGMENT :
Subhash Vidyarthi, J.
1. Heard Sri Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Imran Ibrahim, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 851 of 2021 and Sri. Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Imran Ibrahim, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1665 of 2021, Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the Informant/respondent No.3 and Sri Arunendra Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State of U.P. The writ petition no.851 of 2021 is being treated as the leading case.
2. In both the writ petitions pleadings have been exchanged and with the consent of parties, Writ Petition Nos. 851 of 2021 and Writ Petition No. 1665 of 2021 are being decided by a common judgment as both the Writ Petitions seek quashing of the F.I.R. in Case Crime Number 0016 of 2021, under Sections 295-A, 504, 505 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code[IPC] and Section 67-A of the Information Technology Act[IT Act] in Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Mirzapur filed by one Arvind Chaturvedi, who has been arrayed as the respondent number 3 in both the Writ Petitions, in Police Station Kotwali Dehat District Mirzapur against the petitioners, one Bhowmik Gondaliya and OTT platform company web series Amazon Prime. In both the writ petitions, the Court has accorded interim orders on 29.1.2021 (CRLP 851 of 2021) and 18.2.2021 (CRLP 1665 of 2021). For ready reference, the order dated 18.02.2021 is quoted as under:-
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of F.I.R. dated 17.01.2021 in respect of Crime No.0016 of 2021 for the offence under Section 295-A, 504, 505, 34 of IPC & Section 67-A of Information Technology Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Mirzapur.
Issue notice to respondent no. 3.
Steps by 22.02.2021. Failure in taking steps shall lead to automatic vacation of this order.
Heard on stay application.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that two co-accused persons, namely, Ritesh Sidhwani and Farhan Akhtar have filed Crl. Misc.Writ Petition No.851 of 2021 before this Court and while entertaining their petition, interim order has also been passed in their favour on 29.01.2021. It has been argued that petitioner no.1 was the director and writer of the first season of the web series, Mirzapur, petitioner no. 2 was the director of the first and second season of web series, Mirzapur, petitioner no. 3 was the writer of the second season of web series, Mirzapur and petitioner no. 4 was the writer of the first season of the said web series, Mirzapur.
It has been further argued that petitioners have not been named in the F.I.R. and they are on better footing as compared to named accused persons in the
F.I.R. Learned counsel submits that even if the entire prosecution case is taken as it is, offence under Section 295-A, 504, 505,34 of I.P.C. and Section 67-A of Information Technology Act, is not made out. On the other hand, State Counsel though opposes the writ petition, however, he is not in a position to dispute the fact that in the case of co-accused, interim protection has been granted.
Link this matter with Crl. Misc.Writ Petition No.851 of 2021.
Having regard to the facts of the case and the submissions made, till the next date of listing or till submission of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in pursuance of the FIR registered as Case Crime No. 0016 of 2021, under Section 295-A, 504, 505, 34 IPC & Section 67-A of Information Technology Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Mirzapur.
It is made clear that the investigation shall go on and the petitioners shall cooperate in the investigation and non cooperation
It is clear as crystal that S.295 A does not stipulate everything to be penalised and any and every act would tantamount to insult or attempt to insult religion or religious beliefs of a class of cit....
Intent to humiliate must be established for offences under the Atrocities Act; mere airing of content without direct involvement does not constitute an offence.
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....
Humorous rhyming exclamations in comedy entertainment lack deliberate malicious intent to outrage religious feelings; prior governmental sanction mandatory for offences under Section 295A IPC.
A perusal of the contents of the dialogues in the above noted scenes would show that the offences under Sections 505(1)(b) I.P.C. and 505(2) I.P.C. are fully made out. On the one hand, the sentiments....
No prior sanction is required for the police to register an FIR for offences under Section 295A IPC; such sanction is only necessary when a court takes cognizance after the investigation is complete.
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
