Punjab-Haryana High Court
Maninder Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 2 August, 2013
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
Criminal Misc. No. M-31988 of 2012 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-31988 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: 02.08.2013
Maninder Singh and another ..Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Premjit Singh Hundal, AAG, Punjab
for respondent No.1 - State.
None for respondent No.2.
Daya Chaudhary, J.
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.88 dated 09.09.2010, under Section 295-A of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station City Basti Bawa Khel, Jalandhar as well as other proceedings arising therefrom.
A complaint was made to Police by one Rakesh Kumar wherein it was stated that some derogatory remarks were mentioned in a book titled as 'Bhagat Mala' published by UP Hindi Sansthan, which hurt the feelings of complainant as well as the Society at large. It was prayed that action be taken against the writer and the publisher of the book in accordance with law. On the basis of said complaint, aforesaid FIR was registered against the petitioners. Rani Neetu 2013.08.06 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-31988 of 2012 (O&M) 2
Petitioners are publisher and author, respectively, of book titled 'Bhagat Mala' wherein details of great men have been depicted. The complaint was made stating therein that the derogatory language has been used while depicting life history of 'Maharishi Balmiki', which hurt the feelings of the complainant and other members of the Society.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was no ill will or ill intention to hurt the feelings of the public at large while writing/publishing the said book. It was specifically mentioned in the preface also that the book was written/published by taking all due care and caution. No offence is made out under Section 295-A IPC against the petitioners as the purpose to write/publish the book was not to hurt the feelings of any individual in any manner. The material, which has been published in the book, was collected by the petitioners from various other books. Even from the bare perusal of the life history of 'Maharishi Balmiki', it is clear that it is true and correct version as mentioned in various spiritual books relating to Ancient Hindu Culture and there was no deliberate or malicious intention of the petitioners while writing/publishing the life history of 'Maharishi Balmiki' in any manner. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that there was no deliberate and malicious intention to outrage the religious feeling of any religion or individual.
While attracting Section 295-A IPC, the intent of the author must be malicious as well as deliberate. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that petitioner No.2 is author of more Rani Neetu 2013.08.06 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-31988 of 2012 (O&M) 3 than 70 books of Sahitya, Jotish and Novel relating to Hindu Ancient Culture. Similarly, petitioner No.1 has published 1000s of books on different religion and no deliberate or malicious intention can be attributed to the petitioners while writing/publishing the life history of 'Maharishi Balmiki'.
Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners by stating that filthy language has been used and derogatory remarks have been mentioned and Section 295-A IPC is attracted. Learned State counsel also submits that challan has been presented in the Court and it is a matter of evidence, which is to be seen at the time of recording evidence by the trial Court.
Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State counsel and have also perused the contents of FIR and other documents available on the file.
For consideration of the controversy in the present case, Section 295-A IPC is relevant, which is reproduced as under: -
"295A. Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.-- Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise insults or attempts to insult the religion Rani Neetu 2013.08.06 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-31988 of 2012 (O&M) 4 or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
On bare perusal of Section 295-A IPC, it is clear that in order to attract the provisions of said section, it is incumbent on the part of the prosecution that there was deliberate and malicious intention on the part of offender and he wanted to outrage the religious feelings of a particular Community.
In the present case, the petitioners are publisher and writer, respectively, of the book and there is depiction of the events of life of 'Maharishi Balmiki'. It has been mentioned that initially, 'Maharishi Balmiki' was not adopting the saintly life but one incident shocked his conscience and was totally changed. Even on perusal of some portion of book shown during arguments, nothing appears whether the petitioners have made any deliberate attempt with a malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of any individual or the Community at large. To give commentary on life of a great man cannot be termed that the same has been done with an intention to outrage the religious feelings of any community.
The word "deliberate" has the following meanings :
Carefully weighed or considered; intentional (New Websters Dictionary of the English Language, Delux Encyclopaedic Edition Page 264). To weigh, ponder, discuss (Blacks Law Dictionary). The word "intend" means to decide, resolve, purpose (Blacks Law Rani Neetu 2013.08.06 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-31988 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Dictionary). "Intended" means intentional or designed; as to produce the intended effect (New Websters' Dictionary).
While interpreting the words "deliberate and malicious intention" occurring in Section 295A of the Penal code, the Allahabad High Court in Kali Charan Sharma v. King Emperor AIR 1927 Allahabad 649 (SB) held that :
"This matter must be judged primarily by the language of the book itself though it is permissible to receive and consider external evidence either to prove or to rebut the meaning ascribed to it in the order of forfeiture.
If the language is of a nature calculated to produce or to promote feelings of enmity or hatred the writer must be presumed to intend that which his act was likely to produce....
I have sought, therefore, to judge the intention of the writer from his own declarations in the book, from the nature of the language he has used and from the circumstances in which the book was published and I cannot entertain any doubt, in spite of the author's protestation to the contrary, that the book was conceived and written with the deliberate intention not only of exciting odium against the founder of the Mahomedan religion, but of promoting in Hindus feelings of hatred or enmity Rani Neetu 2013.08.06 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-31988 of 2012 (O&M) 6 against their Muslim fellow-subjects. I pay no attention to the plea that the statements contained in the book are supported by authority; in cases like these the truth of the language can neither be pleaded nor proved; it is immaterial......"
It may be observed that the word "malicious" does not occur in the definition of the words "objectionable performance" in the Act.
While upholding the constitutional validity of Section 295A of the Penal Code, S.R. Das, C.J. in Ramji Lal v. State of U.P. AIR 1957 Supreme Court 620 observed as follows :
"Insults to religion offered unwittingly or carelessly or without any deliberate or malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of that class do not come within the Section. It only punishes the aggravated form of insult to religion when it is perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class. The calculated tendency of this aggravated form of insult is clearly to disrupt the public order and the Section, which penalises such activities, is well within the protection of Clause (2) of Article 19 as being a law imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a)". Rani Neetu 2013.08.06 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-31988 of 2012 (O&M) 7
While examining the validity of the order passed by the Uttar Pradesh Government forfeiting a book which was a compilation of speeches made by the late Dr. Ambedkar, exhorting the scheduled castes to throw off the shackles of caste tyranny by repudiating the Hindu religion and adopting Buddhism instead, a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Lalai Singh v. State of U.P. 1971 Cri LJ 1773 observed as follows :
"Rational criticism of religious tenets, couched in restrained language, cannot amount to an offence either under Section 153-A or under Section 195-A of the Penal Code. And criticism of the Hindu religion for its inculcation of the doctrine of untouchability and for the sanction which it has given to reprehensible treatment meted out to the lower castes has of recent years been considered perfectly legitimate, having been sponsored by no less a person than Mahatma Gandhi himself".
The Supreme Court while confirming the said judgement in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Lalai Singh Yadav (1976) 4 SCC 213 :
(AIR 1977 SC 202) quoted with approval the following observation of Holmes, J. in Schenck v. U.S. (1918) 249 US 47 : 63 Law Ed 470 :
"We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon Rani Neetu 2013.08.06 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-31988 of 2012 (O&M) 8 the circumstances in which it is done.......... The law's stringent protection of free speech, would not protect a man in falsely shouting 'fire' in a theatre, and causing panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force...... The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree."
The Supreme Court finally held as follows :
"Government has the power and responsibility to preserve societal peace and to forfeit publications which endanger it. But what is thereby prevented is freedom of expression, that promoter of the permanent interests of human progress. Therefore, the law (S. 99A) fixes the mind of the Administration to the obligation to reflect on the need to restrict and to state the grounds which ignite its action. To fail here is to fault the order. That is about all."
In State of Mysore v. Henry Rodrigues 1962 (2) Cri LJ 564 a Division Bench of the Mysore High Court considered the scope of Section 295-A of the Penal Code. The 1st accused was the editor and publisher of a monthly magazine and the 2nd accused was the Rani Neetu 2013.08.06 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-31988 of 2012 (O&M) 9 printer of the said magazine. The complaint was to the effect that in certain issues of the magazine there were articles which were insulting to the religion and religious beliefs of the Roman Catholics and that the accused acted with a malicious intention in publishing and printing the same and therefore they committed offence publishable under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code The 1st accused claimed to have made a deep study of the Holy Bible and became convinced that the Bible does not sanction the worship of Virgin Mary. So also it was stated that the Institution of Papacy was not the one sanctioned by the Bible. The Court held as follows :
"Having regard to the purpose for which Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code has been enacted, we find ourselves unable to accept the view that a statement which would otherwise fall within the mischief of Section 295-A, can be taken out of it merely because it happens to be a true statement, As contended by the learned Advocate-General, if the language used transgresses the limit of decency and is designed to vex, annoy and outrage the religious feelings of others, then, the malicious intention of the writer can be inferred from the language employed by him".
In the present case, no material has been placed before this Court to show as to how the feelings of the complainant as well as the members of the Society/Community have been hurt. Simply by Rani Neetu 2013.08.06 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-31988 of 2012 (O&M) 10 stating that the feelings of the complainant and Society at large have been hurt is not sufficient. Everything as mentioned in the complaint appears to be predesigned, predetermined as nothing has been shown as to how the public at large have come to the conclusion that their feelings were hurt. Simply it has been stated that large section of Community, even without indicating which Community, was likely to be incised. Even there is no indication regarding existence of requisite ingredients of Section 295-A IPC.
In view of facts as mentioned above, no offence is made out under Section 295-A IPC and accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.88 dated 09.09.2010, under Section 295-A of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station City Basti Bawa Khel, Jalandhar as well as subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners, namely, Maninder Singh and Dr. Umesh Puri Gyaneshwar, are quashed.
02.08.2013 (DAYA CHAUDHARY)
neetu JUDGE
Rani Neetu
2013.08.06 10:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh