Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9.4. The Apex Court in VINOD DUA v. UNION OF INDIA7 has held as follows:-

".... .... ....
27. In Priya Prakash Varrier [Priya Prakash Varrier v. State of Telangana, (2019) 12 SCC 432 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 397] , the nature of relief claimed was set out in para 1 of the decision whereafter this Court relied upon the dictum of the Constitution Bench in Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P. [Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P., 1957 SCC OnLine SC 77: AIR 1957 SC 620] that for an offence to come within the parameters of Section 295-AIPC, the crime ought to have been committed with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of a class. Finding such element to be completely absent, the relief prayed for was granted by this Court. The relevant observations of this Court were: (Priya Prakash Varrier case [Priya Prakash Varrier v. State of Telangana, (2019) 12 SCC 432: (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 397], SCC pp. 433-37, paras 1, 7, 12-13 and 15) "1. In the instant writ petition preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, namely, the actor, producer and director of the movie, have prayed for quashing of FIR No. 34 of 2018, dated 14-2-2018, registered at Falaknama Police Station, Hyderabad, Telangana. That apart, a prayer has also been made that no FIR should be entertained or no complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal (2023) 14 SCC 286 Procedure, 1973 should be dealt with because of the picturisation of the song "ManikyaMalarayaPoovi" by Petitioner 1 in the film, namely, "OruAdaar Love".
***
15. In view of the aforesaid, we allow the writ petition and quash FIR No. 34 of 2018. We also direct that no FIR under Section 154 or any complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be entertained against the petitioners because of the picturisation of the song. However, there shall be no order as to costs."
28

Notably, this decision rendered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court was in the context of right claimed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, where the offence alleged was one under Section 295-A IPC. Apart from quashing the FIR, this Court also directed that no FIR or complaint should be entertained against the petitioners because of the picturisation of the song concerned." 9.5. A Division Bench of this Court in an earlier judgment in the case of THE STATE OF MYSORE v. HENRY RODRIGUES8 holds as follows: