Telangana High Court
Ms.Ekta Kapoor vs The State Of A.P., Through Sho/Ps ... on 11 December, 2018
SMT JUSTICE T.RAJANI
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.13551 & 13552 OF 2011
COMMON ORDER:
1. These two Criminal Petitions, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., are separately filed by the Petitioners/Accused No.3 and Accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.317 of 2011, pending on the file of the Station House Officer, Nallakunta Police Station, Hyderabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 292 and 294 of I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 (for short, 'the Act').
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent - State, and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent - de-facto complainant.
3. The Crime was registered based on the private complaint filed by the de- facto complainant. While referring the complaint to the concerned Police Station for investigation, learned IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, directed to register the case only against A-3 and also mentioned that the complaint stands rejected against A-1 and A-2 as there was no prima-facie material against them to forward the same for investigation. But, the F.I.R. came to be registered against all the accused, which obviously seems to be an error on the part of the investigating officer.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent - de-facto complainant also does not deny the fact that registration of case against A-1 and A-2 is erroneous.
5. Hence, on the above premise itself, the proceedings against A-2 and A-3 needs to be quashed.
6. So far as registration of the Crime against A-1 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the offences registered against A-1 are 2 TR,J Crl.P. Nos.13551 & 13552/2011 under Sections 292 and 294 of I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Act. With regard to the offence under Section 292 of I.P.C., learned counsel for the petitioners relies on a judgment of the Apex Court in Raj Kapoor Vs. Laxman1; wherein, the Apex Court observed as follows at Paragraph Nos.7 and 9:
"7. ................................The Board under Section 5B has to consider, before certification, all the points Section 292 I.P.C. prescribes. Indeed, neither the Penal Code nor the Cinematograph Act can go beyond the restrictions sanctioned by Part III of the Constitution and once the special law polices the area it is pro tanto out of bounds for the general law. At least as a matter of interpretation, Section 79 I.P.C. resolves the apparent conflict between, Section 292 I.P.C. and Part II of the Act relating to certification of films. If the Board blunders, the Act provides remedies. We are sure the public-spirited citizen may draw the attention of the agencies under the Act to protect public interest.
9. ..................................If, as here, the Board of Censors, acting within their jurisdiction and on an application made and pursued in good faith, sanctions the public exhibition, the producer and connected agencies do enter the statutory harbour and are protected because Section 79 exonerates them at least in view of their bona fide belief that the certificate is justificatory. Thus the trial court when it hears the case may be appropriately apprised of the certificate under the Act and, in the light of our observations, it fills the bill under Section 79 it is right for the court to discharge the accused as the charge is groundless. .............." 1
1980 (2) SCC 175 3 TR,J Crl.P. Nos.13551 & 13552/2011
7. Hence, in view of the above, the prosecution against the petitioner for the offence under Section 292 of I.P.C. cannot be sustained.
8. Coming to the offence under Section 294 of I.P.C., it would be profitable to extract the said provision, which is hereunder:
"294. Obscene acts and songs:- Whoever, to the annoyance of others--
(a) does any obscene act in any public place, or
(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place.
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both." ,,,
9. A perusal of the above, Section 294 of I.P.C. gets attracted only if any person does any obscene act in any public place to the annoyance of others. But, the facts of this case are not that any obscene act was done in any public place. It is only by way of a film, that obscene material was presented to the public, which, as is the case with the offence under Section 292, would be taken care of by the Board. Hence, the prosecution under Section 294 of I.P.C. does not stand to scrutiny.
10. With regard to the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, the very Act itself exempts any film in respect of which the provisions of Part II of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952), will be applicable. Hence, the prosecution for these offences also gets vitiated.
11. Hence, in view of the above, this Court opines that continuation of further proceedings against the petitioners would only be an abuse of process of law.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and all further proceedings against the Petitioners/A-1 to A-3 in Crime No.317 of 2011 on the file of the Station House Officer, Nallakunta Police Station, Hyderabad District, are hereby quashed.
4 TR,J Crl.P. Nos.13551 & 13552/2011
13. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Criminal Petitions shall stand closed.
______________________ T. RAJANI, J Date: 11.12.2018.
Dsh 5 TR,J Crl.P. Nos.13551 & 13552/2011 SMT JUSTICE T.RAJANI 13 15122018 CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 13551 & 13552 OF 2011 Date. 11.12.2018 DSH