Patna High Court - Orders
Sanjay Leela Bhansali & Ors. vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 2 August, 2017
Author: S. Kumar
Bench: S. Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.21464 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -3081 Year- 2013 Thana -MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- MUZAFFARPUR
======================================================
1. Sanjay Leela Bhansali, Son of Navin Bhansali Resident of 601/B, Swati
Mitra Co-Operative Society, JVPD Scheme, Gulmohar Cross Road No.
7, Juhu, Mumbai
2. Ranveer Singh, Son of Shri Jagjeet Singh, Resident of Dream House,
Khar, Mumbai
3. Deepika Padukone, Daughter of Shri Prakash Padukone, Resident of B
Wing, Cozy Homes, Pali Hill, Bandra (West), Mumbai
4. Kishore Lulla, Son of Arjan Lulla, 901/902, 9th Floor, Supreme
Chambers, Off Veera Desai Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400 053
5. Priyanka Chopra, Daughter of Late Dr. Ashok Chopra, Resident of B-
807, Raj Classic, Yari Road, Versova Andheri (West), Mumbai
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sudhir Kumar Ojha, Son of Shri Krishndev Ojha, Resident of Village-
Lalahadpur Patahi, P.S.- Sadar, District- Muzaffarpur
.... .... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Pranav Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Anshu Bhanot, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad (App)
For the Complainant : M/s Pankaj Kumar Singh, Advocate
Vijay Kumar Singh, Advocate
Santosh Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR
C.A.V. ORDER
6 02-08-2017The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 14.02.2014 taking cognizance under Sections 295A, 298 and 153 (b) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as „IPC‟) and also the order dated 02.05.2014 by which bailable warrant has been issued against the petitioners in Complaint Case Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21464 of 2014 (6) dt.02-08-2017 2/10 no. 3081 (C) of 2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.
Petitioner no. 1 is the Director of the film, petitioner no. 2 is the actor, petitioner no. 3 is the actress, petitioner no. 4 is the Executive Director of Eros International Media Limited which has co-produced the film and petitioner no. 5 is the actress in the film. .
Opposite party no. 2, on 02.03.2013, filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, alleging that all the named accused persons-petitioners had hurt the sentiments of Hindus by producing, acting, marketing and exhibiting the film (Goliyon Ki Rasleela Ramleela).
It has been alleged in the complaint that some of the scenes in the film, i.e., firing indiscriminately in front of a temple and breaking of alcohol bottles in a temple etc. hurt the sentiments of the Hindus.
It has further been stated in the complaint that the word Ram Leela is associated with the sentiments of the Hindus and the title of the film „Goliyon Ki Rasleela Ramleela‟ has hurt the sentiments of the Hindus. It has been stated in the complaint petition that Madhya Pradesh High Court had stayed the release of the said film, yet the film was released in the entire country. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21464 of 2014 (6) dt.02-08-2017 3/10 The Cinema Halls of Muzaffarpur exhibited it and have played with the sentiments of the Hindus. On the aforesaid allegations the Complaint Case No. 3081 (C) of 2013 was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.
The complainant was examined on S.A. and thereafter, two witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant and on the basis of enquiry made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, cognizance for the offence was taken vide order dated 14.02.2014.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the film is a work of fiction. The film is neither related to „Ramleela‟ associated with Lord Ram nor related with „Rasleela‟ associated with Lord Krishna. The film is not related to Lord Ram or Lord Krishna or to any of the Hindu religious beliefs, sentiments or sensibilities. The film is a story of two main characters „Ram‟ and „Leela‟ and based on the work of Willam Shakespeare „ Romeo & Juliet‟. Ram the character in the said film does not depict or resemble Lord Sri Ram in any manner nor does the said film or title depict traditional Ramleela performance associated with Lord Shri Ram. The film does not in any manner promote hatred or enmity against group or community nor it intends or attempts to insult wound or outrage the religion, religious feelings/sentiments Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21464 of 2014 (6) dt.02-08-2017 4/10 or religious beliefs of any class of citizens of India or any religious group. The film is not obscene, vulgar, objectionable or offensive in any manner.
It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that all the certifications, required for the theatrical release of that film after making excisions and modifications to the said film as directed by the Central Board of Film Certification (hereinafter referred to as „CBFC‟) constituted under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and Rules and Guidelines for Certification of Films for Public Exhibition were obtained. The said film was censored by the Censor Board in accordance with Section 5-B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 read with the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 and following Guidelines for Certification of Films for public Exhibition and vide Section 5A of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 granting U/A certificate to the film, the same was released worldwide on 15th November 2013. It has further been contended that the said film has two disclaimers in the beginning of the said film which reads as follows :-
"Ram the character in this film does not depict or resemble LORD SHRI RAM in any manner nor does the film or title thereof depict traditional Ramleela performance associated with LORD SHRI RAM. The Film neither intends nor attempts to insult, wound or outrage the religion, religious feelings or religious beliefs of any class of citizens of India. This film is a work of fiction & all the names, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21464 of 2014 (6) dt.02-08-2017 5/10 characters, incidents and communities depicted in this are imaginary & based in a fictitious location. The resemblance to any person dead or alive is purely coincidental. The film is meant for entertainment purposes only & neither the producers, director nor the artists intend to outrage, insult, wound or hurt the sentiments, beliefs or feelings of any religions), persons(s), class, community or sect."
It has been stated that once the CBFC had certified for exhibition of the film, any proceeding initiated decrying the validity or merit of such certification cannot be held to be valid and continuance of such proceeding would tantamount to usurping the powers of the CBFC.
It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on a bare perusal of the complaint case even taken in its entirety, it cannot constitute any offence against the petitioners under Sections 295A, 298 and 153B of the IPC. It has further been stated that once the film is censored by the CBFC, the petitioners are justified to release the film. In view of the provisions of Section 5A and 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 read with Section 79 of the IPC, no criminal complaint for offences under IPC is maintainable for exhibiting or telecasting the said film. In support of such submission learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajkapoor vs. Laxman ( 1980) 2 SCC 175. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21464 of 2014 (6) dt.02-08-2017 6/10 challenging the order dated 14.02.2014 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 153B and 295A by the learned Magistrate suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction and is ab initio illegal, non-est and otherwise unsustainable in law. Learned Magistrate has clearly overlooked the bar under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which barred the learned Magistrate from taking cognizance under Section 153B and Section 295A of IPC without previous sanction of the State Government and Central Government. The impugned order initiated for criminal proceeding is wholly unjustified, illegal and infringement of right of freedom and expression. None of the essential ingredients either under Sections 153B, 295A and 298 of the IPC is made out in the present complaint. Learned Magistrate has mechanically issued process without applying its judicial mind to the complaint.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has appeared and opposed the prayer of the petitioners. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 that at the time of taking cognizance the Court has to form prima facie opinion regarding sufficient materials on record to issue summons against the accused persons and at the initial stage the criminal proceeding should not be Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21464 of 2014 (6) dt.02-08-2017 7/10 interfered. Hence, there are sufficient materials on record to proceed against the accused persons.
After hearing the rival contention of the counsel for petitioners, State and informant, I find the order impugned is not sustainable for following reasons :-
(i) Freedom of speech and expression is a valuable fundamental right enshrined under the Constitution. Film being a peace of art is entitled to protection of Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. Petitioners have fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India as same guarantees freedom of expression but said freedom is subject to censorship. The Act operates a reasonable restriction on the freedom of film matters who are required to obtain certificate under Section 5A of the Act. Central Board of Film Certification is required to asses if film is fit for public viewing and once Board, the statutory authority, certified the film for public viewing, initiation of present criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21464 of 2014 (6) dt.02-08-2017 8/10 the Court.
(ii) Section 79 of the IPC lays down that nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law in doing it. The provisions of Section 79 IPC make an offence a non-offence when the offending Act is actually justified by law or is bonafide believed by mistake of fact to be so justified. In view of the certificate of exhibition having been issued, prosecution of petitioners is not sustainable.
(iii) No sanction by the competent authority has been taken as required under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before taking cognizance under Section 295A and 153B of the IPC.
(iv) The Central Board of Film Certification is required to asses the decency, morality and security of State before issuing a certificate for public viewing of the film. Sections 5A and 5B Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21464 of 2014 (6) dt.02-08-2017 9/10 of the Act require the Board to consider whether the movie being considered for certification has any content that is contemptuous of any religious group or otherwise communal in nature. The certification of the Board tantamounts to adjudication by a specialized statutory body that film does not offend any religious sentiments. The film was censored by the Film Censor Board in accordance with Section 5-B of Cinematograph Act of 1952 read with Cinematograph (Certification) Rules 1983 and vide Section 5A of the said Act granted "U/A"
certificate. In view of bar as provided by Section 5A and 5B, criminal prosecution is not maintainable.
(v) The issue raised in this petition is no more res integra. Several decisions passed by different High Courts on the issue has been enclosed along with petition and cited by counsel for the petitioners in which different High Courts have quashed the criminal prosecution. I am not Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21464 of 2014 (6) dt.02-08-2017 10/10 inclined to take any different view and concur with the views taken by different High Courts as referred in said judgments.
For the reasons, as stated above, the order dated 02.05.2014 taking cognizance against petitioners under Sections 295A, 298 and 153B of the IPC by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, in Complaint Case No. 3081 ( C ) of 2013 as well as the whole proceedings arising out of the said Complaint Case is quashed.
Petition stands allowed.
(S. Kumar, J) sudip/-
U T