Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajan Shahi vs State Of Punjab And Another on 16 July, 2013
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
Criminal Misc. No.M-37128 of 2011
.....
Date of decision:16.7.2013
Rajan Shahi
...Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
....
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. Jasjit Singh Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. A.S. Jattana, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
Mr. Navkiran Singh and Mr. Harjeet Singh, Advocates
for respondent No.2.
.....
Inderjit Singh, J.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.322 dated 6.10.2009 registered for the offence under Section 295-A IPC at Police Station Division 4, Jalandhar, District Jalandhar and the proceedings emanating therefrom.
The brief facts of the case as stated in the petition are that the petitioner is a producer by profession and has produced Tele serials and programmes including the Tele serial called `Bidaai' aired on Star Plus Channel, a national entertainment channel owned by M/s Star India Private Limited. On 6.10.2009, Star Plus channel aired a programme Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.08.29 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. No.M-37128 of 2011 [2] called `Bidaai' in which the following conversation took place between two fictional characters of the cast i.e. `Alekh' and his Mamaji. The relevant excerpt of the script of the episode is as under:-
"Aalekh says-: kya main aapse kuch pooch sakta hoon
mamaji?
Mama-: "haan haan bilkul" ...
Aalekh-: wo main Valmiki ki kahani padh raha tha mamaji kya sach me wo ek chor se saadhu baba ban gaye. Koi aadmi itna badal sakta hai kya?
Mama smiles as he explains-: Valmiki ji ke paas himmat thi ... aatmvishvaas tha beta.... jiske man me aastha aur pakka vishvaas ho use koi nahi rok sakta.
here Alekh listening to all of this very carefully and registering in his mind as if he also upto something like that he nods his head and says-:
"achha" samajh gaya (he looks at Sadhana and says) theek hai ab main Sadhana ko phone deta hoon.."
After the telecast of the above mentioned programme, as alleged in the FIR, some people from a particular community called `Valmiki Samaj', allegedly being aggrieved by the above dialogue viz. gathered at Ali Mohalla, Jalandhar and protested against the Channel, while judging the above said statement out of context and ignoring the entire scheme of the dialogue, which in reality was in praise of Lord Valmiki as stated in the next dialogue. It is stated that the entire dialogue clearly depicts that the Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.08.29 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. No.M-37128 of 2011 [3] intention behind it was to praise Lord Valmiki and was, in no way, insulting him or from committing an offence under Section 295-A IPC. It is stated that sensing that the sentiments of the people might have been hurt, as alleged, even when the entire dialogue was in support and praise of Lord Valmiki and it was nobody's intention to hurt any ones religious feelings, M/s Star India Private Limited unilaterally run a scroll on the channel clarifying that their intention was never to hurt the feelings of the Valmiki Samaj. Still further, the said company got an article published in the `Punjab Kesari' on 11.10.2009 expressing its regret for the inadvertent hurt caused to the sentiments of the public. It is further stated that a show cause notice dated 23.10.2009 was issued to M/s Star India Private Limited by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and after filing of the reply, thereby bringing the correct position to the notice of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, and a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed before this Court for quashing of the aforementioned FIR. Criminal miscellaneous petition preferred by M/s Star India Private Limited for quashing the FIR was dismissed vide order dated 29.4.2010 passed by the High Court leaving it open to M/s Star India Private Limited to appear before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of investigation. It was observed that it would not be appropriate for this Court to express any opinion as to the nature of the offence or the nature of the investigation leaving it open to the Police to examine the script and form a considered opinion, whether any offence is made out or not. This order was challenged by way of special leave petition before the Hon'ble Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.08.29 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. No.M-37128 of 2011 [4] Supreme Court and sought permission to withdraw the special leave petition to file fresh petition before proper forum at an appropriate stage. The said prayer was accepted and the special leave petition was dismissed as withdrawn. It is stated in the petition that it was brought to the petitioner's notice that the Police has presented the challan on 20.9.2010 in the above mentioned FIR before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar. The petitioner was granted regular bail when he appeared before the Court. It is the case of the petitioner that a perusal of the challan shows that it has been presented on the basis of statements of the complainant and other members of Balmiki community. The challan was presented for the offence under Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the dialogue spoken in the serial by the characters Alekh and Mama ji are to be read in the wider context and these do not constitute any defamatory words to Valmiki ji, rather these are in the praise of Valmiki ji. He next argued that in the earlier order, this Court has only refused quashing because the investigation was going on. He further argued that the order in the SLP also shows that the permission was got to withdraw the SLP and to file a fresh petition at an appropriate stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner next argued that Delhi High Court has quashed warning issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that in the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court the same wording has been used.
On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant- Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.08.29 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Cr. Misc. No.M-37128 of 2011 [5] respondent No.2 and learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent-State argued that all these facts have already been discussed by this Court in the earlier order while dismissing the quashing petition filed by M/s Star India Private Limited. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the challan has already been presented. There are also statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of so many persons which further support and corroborate the version given in the FIR. The petitioner after withdrawing the SLP from the Hon'ble Supreme Court has again come to this Court. The petitioner should argue the case that no charge is made out before the Court where the challan is presented and he is not to file the petition again on the same point. Learned counsel for the respondents also argued that the Star Plus channel has also in another Tele serial "Kum-Kum - Ek Piara Bandhan"
has referred Valmiki ji as a `Daku' and then the producer tendered an unconditional apology on 28.12.2003 and the petitioner in another TV serial again used the words as `Chor' for Valmiki ji, therefore, it cannot be held as unintentional. Learned counsel for the respondents also argued that if derogatory statement is followed by laudatory reference, the FIR cannot be quashed and it cannot be held that there was no intention to denigration the reputation of Lord Valmiki ji.
I have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the parties.
I find that earlier M/s Star India Private Limited has filed the quashing petition before this Court to quash FIR No.322 dated 6.10.2009 Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.08.29 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. No.M-37128 of 2011 [6] registered at Police Station Division 4, Jalandhar and all proceedings emanating therefrom. In that petition also, it was argued that the allegations levelled in the FIR, even if accepted true, do not disclose the commission of any offence, much-less an offence under Section 295-A of the IPC. In that petition, it was also argued that the words used by the characters do not fall within the mischief of Section 295-A of the IPC and there is no insult or intention to outrage the religious feelings of any class, religion or community. The other pleas that the petitioner is protected under Article 19-A of the Constitution etc. were taken. In the order passed by this Court on 29.4.2010, it is held that the complaint does not disclose the commission of any offence, as the words spoken by the characters in the serial are not malicious or intended to outrage the religious sentiments of any community, cannot be considered at this stage and are best left to be determined by the investigating agency or by the trial Court. For this Court to raise an inference in favour of either party at this nascent stage of investigation would be a travesty of justice. This Court in the order dated 29.4.2010 while dismissing the petition filed by M/s Star India Private Limited has clearly held that these facts are to be determined by the investigating agency or by the trial Court. The SLP has been filed against that order which has been got withdrawn by the senior counsel seeking prayer to withdraw the permission to file fresh petition before proper forum at an appropriate stage. To file criminal miscellaneous petition again, in no way, can be held that it has been filed before the proper forum at an appropriate stage. The criminal miscellaneous petition has Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.08.29 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. No.M-37128 of 2011 [7] been filed by Rajan Shahi, producer of the serial almost on the same grounds. It has been brought to the notice of this Court at the time of arguments that during the investigation statements of so many persons have been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and challan has already been presented. Therefore, the appropriate stage for the petitioner to argue the case is before the trial Court and to show that no charge is made out or the offence is not made out prima facie from the allegations. To file the criminal miscellaneous petition again, at this stage, is not an appropriate stage specially in view of the earlier order of this Court that this is to be seen by the investigating agency or the trial Court. In view of this position, it is not necessary to discuss the evidence for the purpose whether any prima facie case is made out or not or what was the intention of the characters by saying `Chor' to Valmiki ji or whether it is defamatory or insulting the religious community. All these facts are to be considered by the trial Court where the petitioner should argue all these points. At this stage from the record it cannot be held that no offence is made out or the allegations are vague.
As regards the case law, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments of Supreme Court in Rakesh Kaushik v. B.L. Vig, Superintendent, Central Jail, New Delhi and another, 1980 Supp. SCC 183; Maru Ram and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1980 SC 2147; Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 1325; State of Gujarat v. Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, 1998(4) RCR (Cr.) 350; Inder Singh and another v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 SC 1091 that Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.08.29 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. No.M-37128 of 2011 [8] same observations are given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the cases on Valmiki ji will be of no benefit to the petitioner. This Court is not to sit over the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or to interpret in which context these words have been used. He is to explain his conduct and these judgments, in no way, exonerate the petitioner in any way. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Jai Ram Sharma v. State of Punjab, 1998(3) RCR (Cr.) 295; Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2007 (2) RCR (Cr. 883 and Harbhajan Singh alias Bhajji v. Sh. Arvind Thakur and another, 2010(3) RCR (Cr.) 100 to argue that no offence is made out under Section 295-A IPC. As already discussed and in view of the earlier order passed in the criminal miscellaneous petition, all these facts are to be seen by the trial Court where challan has been presented and the petitioner should argue the case there. He cannot raise the same points which have already been discussed in the earlier criminal miscellaneous petition filed by M/s Star India Private Limited from where the serial was aired. Only on this ground that now the producer of the serial has come for quashing is no ground to ignore the earlier order passed by this Court in the same FIR.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in Maqbool Fida Husain v. Rajkumar Pandey & etc., 2008 Cr.L.J. 4107. This judgment having distinguished facts will not apply in the present case.
Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.08.29 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Cr. Misc. No.M-37128 of 2011 [9] Therefore, from the above discussion, I find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.
July 16, 2013. (Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.08.29 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh