Read Judgment
The Madras High Court on Thursday comprising of a bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar quashed criminal proceedings against cine actor Suriya and director TJ Gnanavel for allegedly hurting the sentiments of the Vanniyar community in his movie Jai Bhim. (TJ Gnanavel & Anr versus the State & Anr)
Facts of the case
This petition was filed seeking to quash the F.I.R. filed against the petitioners, by the first respondent police, pursuant to the directions of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, for the offence punishable under Section 295A of IPC.
The crux of the allegation in the FIR is that the defacto complainant / second respondent and his friend has watched a movie by name "Jai Bhim" acted and produced by Mr.Suriya (A2) and directed by Mr.T.J.Gnanavel (A1) and released in OTT platform. It is projected that as if it is a real story and that they came to know that it in order to insult and humiliate the defacto complainant's community and incite communal violence, the story has been projected as if a Irular community man was killed by a Sub Inspector of Police named Guru. It is the case of the defacto complainant that name of Guru has been given to the police officer and in fact the name Guru refers to the former President of Vanniyar Sangam. Further, it can be seen that the daily calendar of the Vanniyar Sangam was also used and thereby FIR has been lodged for an offence punishable under Section 295A of IPC.
Contention of the Parties
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that the film showcases the torture inflicted upon the Irular community people under police custody. The story is based on a case conducted before the Madras High Court. The names are not connected with any particular section or community. The movie was also given an appropriate certificate by the Censor Board. He further contended that absolutely there is no allegation which attracts the offence under Section 295A of IPC. Merely on the inference and presumptions of the defacto complainant that his caste leader's name has been used, the offence under Section 295A of IPC cannot be invoked.
It was the further contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that before forwarding the complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate ought to have seen that sanction has been properly obtained for screening the motive from a Statutory Body, whereas, the learned Magistrate has mechanically forwarded the complaint, which resulted in lodging of the complaint against the Director and the Producer. Therefore, he sought to quash the entire FIR as it is an abuse of process of law.
Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant, apart from filing the counter, would submit that in the movie a caste leader of a particular caste has been projected in a negative manner and humiliated. The entire movie has instigated violence between two sections of the society and hence the offence under Section 295A of IPC has been clearly attracted and at this stage, the FIR cannot be quashed.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent police would submit that police registered the FIR since there was a direction under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. by the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet and submitted that he is leaving the matter to the Court.
Courts Observation and order
The Bench at the very outset observed that merely presuming that name given to a character in movies resembles that of the leader of a community it can’t be presumed that such projection is directed towards a particular community.
The Court further noted that to attract an offence u.s 295A IPC, there has to be a deliberate and malicious intention by the accused to hurt the religious sentiments of people. However, the instant FIR doesn’t disclose the nature of insult against a community therefore Section 295A IPC will not be attracted.
Significantly, the Bench opined that the Magistrate had mechanically forwarded the complaint without applying mind and even though the Magistrate observed that the complaint discloses a cognisable offence, he did not even state what that cognisable offence is.
The bench allowing the Petition remarked, "The learned Magistrate has forwarded the complaint mechanically without applying his mind. It is also relevant to note that the learned Magistrate while referring the complaint generally observed that the complaint discloses some cognizable offence. The learned Magistrate has not even stated which of the cognizable offence is made out. The learned Magistrate has mechanically forwarded the complaint for investigation observing that some cognizable offence has been made out, which is not valid.
Such view of the matter, considering the entire allegations contained in the FIR, this Court is of the view that offence under Section 295A of IPC is not attracted in this case. Hence, the complaint in Crime No.275 of 2022 pending on the file of the first respondent police is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. The Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed."
Therefore, the Bench ordered the quashing of the FIR registered against the petitioners.
Read Judgment ;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments