Rajasthan HC Quashes FIR Against Shilpa Kundra for S.153A IPC & SC/ST Act Violations Citing Delay, Retrospective Law Application, Lack of Intent & Sanction - 2025-05-13

FIR Against Shilpa Kundra Over Alleged Casteist Remark Quashed by High Court

Jaipur , Rajasthan – A single-judge bench of the High Court has quashed an FIR lodged against film actor Shilpa Raj Kundra for alleged offences under Section 153(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1)(r)(u) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). The court found the FIR legally untenable due to significant delays, the retrospective application of certain laws, lack of criminal intent, and procedural non-compliance.

Case Background

The FIR (No.258/2017) was registered on December 22, 2017, at Police Station Kotwali Churu, based on a complaint by Ashok Panwar . Panwar alleged that he saw a TV interview featuring actors Salman Khan and Shilpa Raj Kundra wherein they used the word " Bhangi ," which allegedly hurt the sentiments of the Valmiki community. The interview in question was reportedly recorded and telecast in 2013.

Kundra, the petitioner, challenged the FIR, arguing that it did not disclose any cognizable offence and its continuation was an abuse of the process of law.

Key Arguments

Petitioner's Counsel (for Shilpa Kundra ):

* Inordinate Delay: The FIR was lodged more than three years after the alleged interview in 2013, a delay not explained and thus fatal to the case.

* Retrospective Application of Law: The invoked sections 3(1)(r)(u) of the SC/ST Act were incorporated by an amendment effective January 26, 2016, well after the 2013 interview. Thus, Kundra could not be tried under non-existent sections.

* No Offence under Section 153A IPC: There was no intent to promote enmity between groups, and the requisite government sanction under Section 196 Cr.P.C. was not obtained.

* SC/ST Act Inapplicable: The alleged remarks lacked the specific intent to humiliate based on caste, a necessary ingredient for offences under the Act.

Learned Public Prosecutor: * Opposed the petition, stating that the law should take its own course. * Argued that if investigation unearthed incriminating material, culpability would be fastened; otherwise, a negative final report would be filed.

Court's Detailed Reasoning and Findings

The High Court, after perusing the FIR and hearing both sides, agreed with the petitioner's counsel, finding the FIR unsustainable on multiple grounds:

1. Inexplicable Delay in FIR: The court emphasized that a delay of over three years in lodging the FIR was "per se fatal." Citing the Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs State of Chhatisgarh (2016) and Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar (2012), the judgment noted:

"Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. ...danger also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story." The court found that such extraordinary delay raised "grave doubt about the truthfulness of allegations."

2. Non-Applicability of SC/ST Act Sections: The court observed that the offences under Sections 3(1)(r)(u) of the SC/ST Act, invoked in the 2017 FIR, were introduced by the SC/ST Amendment Act, 2015, effective from January 26, 2016. Since the interview occurred in 2013, "the said sections were not even in existence at the time of the alleged interview. Hence, the Petitioner cannot be tried under any of the above mentioned offences by invoking non existent section."

3. Lack of Ingredients for Section 153A IPC: The court found no evidence of mens rea (criminal intent) to promote enmity between groups.

"A plain reading of the FIR reveals no reference or indication of such promotion, nor do its contents imply it. ...merely offending or hurting the feelings of one community or group, without any incitement, does not satisfy the requirements of Section 153A." The court stressed that the sine qua non for Section 153A IPC is the accused's intent to incite public disorder or instigate violence.

4. Procedural Non-Compliance under Section 196 Cr.P.C.: For prosecuting under Section 153A IPC, prior sanction from the Central or State Government is mandatory under Section 196 Cr.P.C.

"No such sanction was obtained, rendering the FIR liable to be quashed for non-compliance with mandatory legal prerequisites." Additionally, the requirement for a preliminary investigation by an officer not below the rank of Inspector before granting sanction, as per Section 196(3) Cr.P.C., was also not met.

5. SC/ST Act Provisions Not Attracted: The court analyzed the use of the term " Bhangi ," noting its varied etymological meanings, including "broken," "fragmented," or a user of 'bhang' (cannabis), and even "fraud" or "peculiar behaviour."

"The interpretation of term thus varies across regions. What is offensive in one context might not be so in another, and intent must be judged based on the overall narrative." The judgment observed that celebrities often speak casually in interviews and statements can be taken out of context. There was no evidence that the accused intended to demean the Valmiki community or that the statements, made three years prior to the FIR, led to any actual social unrest.

Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Shajan Skaria Vs. The State of Kerala & Ors (Criminal Appeal No.2622/2024, dated 23.08.2024, as per the judgment text), the court reiterated:

"The words 'with intent to humiliate' as they appear in the text of Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 are inextricably linked to the caste identity of the person... Mere knowledge of the fact that the victim is a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is not sufficient to attract Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989." The court found no indication that the alleged statements were made because the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Caste.

Final Decision

Concluding that the FIR lacked the essential ingredients for the alleged offences, failed to adhere to mandatory procedural requirements, and showed no applicability of the SC/ST Act, the court held the FIR to be "patently illegal and deserves to be quashed."

The court stated:

"As an upshot of my discussion recorded in the preceding part and guided by the ratio rendered in the Supreme Court judgment, ibid, the petition is allowed. FIR No.258/2017 dated 22.12.2017 lodged at Police Station Kotwali Churu, for the alleged offences under Sections 153(A) of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(u) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, qua the petitioner, is hereby quashed."

This decision underscores the importance of timely reporting, the non-retrospective application of penal laws, the necessity of proving criminal intent for offences like promoting enmity, and strict adherence to procedural safeguards like prior sanction for prosecution.