Punjab-Haryana High Court
Brahamcharani Didi Chetna @ Chelna ... vs State Of Punjab And Another on 29 April, 2014
CRM-M-41015-2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-41015-2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: 29.04.2014
Brahamcharani Didi Chetna @ Chelna (Jain Sadhvi)
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH
1. Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
PRESENT: Ms. Baljit Mann, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Deepak Garg, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
R.P. NAGRATH, J.
Petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 85 dated 28.8.2009 (Annexure P-1) under Section 295-A IPC as well as the charge-sheet, order framing charge dated 6.4.2012 (Annexure P-2) and all subsequent proceedings taken thereunder.
2. The petitioner is Preacher of Jain Religion and follower of Shree Digamber Jain sect. She renounced the world at the early age of Kataria Rishu 2014.05.02 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41015-2012 -2- her life. The petitioner has been conferred various awards by large number of religious institutions in recognition of her services to the mankind. It is stated that the petitioner delivers religious discourse (Pravachan) of one hour daily in the morning and evening at various religious places. One such religious discourse was delivered on 27.8.2009 in Digamber Jain Mandir, Jalandhar Cantt. It was pertaining to that religious discourse for which FIR in question was registered.
3. As per the prosecution story stated in the FIR, the discourse was going on in Digamber Jain Mandir, Jalandhar Cantt. for about 3-4 days. On 27.8.2009 at about 8.30 p.m. duing preachingthe petitioner made derogatory remarks against Bhagwan Valmiki. On hearing the same, the entire Valmiki community felt offended. On the said statement of complainant/respondent No. 2, FIR for offence under Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was registered.
4. It was not disputed that after registration of FIR, offence under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act') was also added. However, on the representation made by President of Shree Digamber Jain sect., an enquiry was conducted by Superintendent of Police (City-II), Jalandhar, who submitted his report dated 6.9.2009 (Annexure P-4). It was found that offence under Section 3 of the Act was not attracted. Ultimately, the challan was presented against the petitioner for offence under Section 295-A IPC. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar found prima facie case against the petitioner for offence under Section 295-A IPC and accordingly, the charge was framed. The Kataria Rishu 2014.05.02 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41015-2012 -3- contents of the charge-sheet are that on 27.8.2009 at about 8.30 p.m. in the area of Digamber Jain Temple, the petitioner with deliberate and malicious, intention of outraging the religious feelings of Valmiki community by words spoken, insulted the religious feelings of said community and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 295-A of IPC.
5. Learned petitioner's counsel contended that during the religious discourse, the petitioner was preaching the importance of upright thought and action. She narrated various stories to inspire and encourage the disciples to shun the path of evil and adopt the path of righteousness. An attempt was made to highlight the fact that any person by his good conduct and by worshiping the Lord can overcome all the difficulties and become a good human being. The petitioner in the said religious discourse praised Lord Valmiki by referring to the folklore and traditional belief that the Great Lord Valmiki had achieved sainthood by worshipping the Lord in spite of the fact that he was earlier referred to as a dacoit. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that an attempt was made to prosecute the petitioner without highlighting the exact words allegedly uttered against Lord Valmiki.
6. On the other hand, learned State counsel and counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that such an issue cannot be gone into, in the summary proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the petitioner may raise all these contentions during the course of trial.
7. To understand the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to refer to the language of Section 295-A IPC. It says that whoever, with Kataria Rishu 2014.05.02 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41015-2012 -4- deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished under this Section.
8. This offence, therefore, would be attracted if the petitioner had deliberate and malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens. In view of the nature of allegations against the petitioner, the said ingredient cannot be even remotely attracted especially when the petitioner delivered the religious discourse in the gathering.
9. In the FIR (Annexure P-1) the exact words used by the petitioner have not been mentioned. It was simply stated that petitioner made derogatory remarks against Bhagwan Valmiki in the religious discourse. In the enquiry conducted by Superintendent of Police (City- II), Jalandhar, the complainant made the statement Annexure P-3 on 31.8.2009. The complainant stated before SP (City) as under:-
"On 27.8.2009, Sadhvi Chetna while delivering the religious preaching at Digamber Jain Mandir, Jalandhar Cantt. uttered derogatory remarks against Bhagwan Balmiki. She had stated that Balmiki was earlier a dacoit and used to loot people in the jungle. After worshipping the Lord, he because a saint/Rishi Bhagwan. Then why the people belonging to the Churha Balmik community who indulge in sinful acts Kataria Rishu 2014.05.02 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41015-2012 -5- and looting cannot become Rishis."
10. The complainant stated before an enquiry officer that in this regard had made statement before DSP (City-II). But he has now been told by members of the community that the petitioner had not uttered any derogatory words against the community of the petitioner. Therefore, the only utterances made by the petitioner, in the trial are that Bhagwan Valmki was earlier a Dacoit who used to loot people in the jungle and became a saint/Rishi Bhagwan by worshipping the Lord. It is on the basis of aforesaid statement of complainant and the enquiry report that offence under Section 3 of the Act was deleted while presenting the challan.
11. Reply by the State as well as private respondent No. 2 to the instant petition were filed. It is stated that the complainant heard few words uttered by the petitioner and rightly got registered the FIR on the basis of those utterances.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel, learned counsel for respondent and given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions.
13. There was a similar case before this Court in CRM-M- 31988-2012 Maninder Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab and another decided on 2.8.2013. The criminal prosecution was launched on the complaint stating therein that 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. The petitioners in that case were the publisher and author, respectively of the Kataria Rishu 2014.05.02 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41015-2012 -6- book titled 'Bhagat Mala' and there is depiction of the events of life of 'Maharishi Balmiki'. It was mentioned that initially, 'Maharishi Balmiki' was not adopting the saintly life but one incident shocked his conscience and he was totally changed.
14. Reference was made by this Court in Maninder Singh's case (supra) to Ramji Lal Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1957 SC 620, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that 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. This Court held in the facts of Mohinder Singh's case (supra) that there was no indication regarding existence of requisite ingredients of Section 295-A and thus quashed the FIR as well as subsequent proceedings.
15. Learned petitioner's counsel also referred to Star India Private Limited Vs. Union of India (UOI) 182 (2011) DLT 636, of Delhi High Court. In that case the Star India Private Limited (SIPL) had telecast a serial on 6.10.2009, allegedly containing objectionable and derogatory remarks against Maharishi Valmiki having the effect of maligning an individual who is part of the social and moral life of large sections of the country. In the said episode, there was a conversation between two actors in which the following dialogue was spoken, the Kataria Rishu 2014.05.02 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41015-2012 -7- rough English translation of which would be:
Alekh: Uncle, can I ask you something? Uncle:Yes, sure.
Alekh: I was reading the story of Valmiki. Did he really become a saint from being a thief..... can a person change so much?
Uncle smilingly explains: Valmiki Ji had courage.... and self confidence... there is no stopping a person who has faith and complete confidence in oneself... Here Alekh listening to all of this very carefully and registering in this mind as if he also upto something like that...
He nods his head and says: "Okay, I see!"... (he looks at Sadhana and says) okay now I will hand over the phone to Sadhna."
16. The High Court of Delhi held that the context in which the said dialogue occurs has to be understood with reference the entire episode, the script of which has been annexed to the writ petition. When the above scene is viewed in the context of the theme of the serial and the entire episode, it is difficult to appreciate the conclusion drawn by the respondent that it contains any derogatory remarks against Maharishi Valmiki or maligns an individual or the words used are contemptuous of religious groups or promote communal attitudes and "are likely to encourage violence". There was the controversy of use of word "chor" being the objectionable word in the context of Lord Valmiki. It was held Kataria Rishu 2014.05.02 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41015-2012 -8- that it is not proper to take one word out of context to determine if it is derogatory or defamatory. It has to be viewed in the context and setting of the episode in which the dialogue occurs.
17. Learned petitioner's counsel further contended that story of Lord Valmiki before his transformation has been passed down from one generation to the other since ancient times. This debate is also found in the "Encyclopaedia of Religion" by Macmillan Reference USA which is widely regarded as the standard reference work in the field of religion. The relevant extract of the same is Annexure P-5. There are similar references to the aforesaid folklore on the interpretation of the holy book 'Shri Ramayan' by Sant Shromani Prof. Jawala Prashad published in the year 1996 and also the Wikipedia: The free Encyclopaedia. Copies of the articles on Lord Valmiki are Annexures P-6 and P-7.
18. The exact words stated in the religious discourse by the petitioner have already been referred and in view of the above discussion, the above version even if accepted, would not attract the ingredients of Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code as these are not even remotely shown to be the utterances made with deliberate and malicious intention outraging the religious feelings of the class of citizens to which the complainant belongs. If that is the fact situation, this Court must intervene as continuation of the proceedings in that event would be nothing but an abuse of the process of Court.
19. In view of the above, the instant petition is allowed and FIR No. 85 dated 28.8.2009 (Annexure P-1) registered under Section 295-A IPC at Police Station Jalandhar Cantt. District Jalandhar as well as the Kataria Rishu 2014.05.02 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41015-2012 -9- charge-sheet; order framing charge dated 6.4.2012 (Annexure P-2) and all subsequent proceedings taken thereunder are quashed.
April 29, 2014 ( R.P. NAGRATH )
rishu JUDGE
Kataria Rishu
2014.05.02 14:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document