THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRL.P.Nos.8529, 8713, 8245, 8779, 8822 & 9049 of 2012 Date:14.08.2014 Crl.P.No.8529/2012 Between:
Mrs. Surekha Vani and others.
..... Petitioners/A6, A7, A8 & A9.
AND The State of A.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another.
. Respondents.
Crl.P.No.8713/2012 Between:
Dr. Manchu Bakthavatsalam Naidu @ Mohan Babu and others.
..... Petitioners/A2, A3, A4 & A7.
AND Chakkilam Raghunatha rao and the State of A.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another.
. Respondents.
Crl.P.No.8245/2012 Between:
Dr. Manchu Bakthavatsalam Naidu @ Mohan Babu and others.
AND G. Pavan Kumar and the State o f A.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
Crl.P.No.8779/2012 ..... Petitioners/A1 to A4.
. Respondents.
Between:
Dr. Manchu Bakthavatsalam Naidu @ Mohan Babu and others.
..... Petitioners/A1 to A4 & A6.
AND Siripurapu Venkata Sreedhar and the State of A.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
. Respondents.
Crl.P.No.8822/2012 Between:
Dr. Manchu Bakthavatsalam Naidu @ Mohan Babu and others.
..... Petitioners/A1 to A4, A6 & A7.
AND Varanasi Pavan Kumar and the State of A.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
. Respondents.
Crl.P.No.9049/2012 Between:
Dr. Manchu Bakthavatsalam Naidu @ Mohan Babu and others.
..... Petitioners/A1 to A3 & A6.
AND Durbakula Appayya Sastry and the State of A.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
. Respondents.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRL.P.Nos.8529, 8713, 8245, 8779, 8822 & 9049 of 2012 COMMON ORDER:
All these petitions arise out of same incident, but different F.I.Rs are registered at different places, and, therefore, they are disposed of through this common order.
2. Petitioners in Crl.P.No.8529/2012 are A6, A7, A8 & A9 in Crime No.462/2012 of Chaitanyapuri Police Station, Cyberabad, Rangareddy District for the alleged offences under Sections 120-B, 153-A, 295-A & 420 IPC.
3. Petitioners in Crl.P.No.8713/2012 are A2, A3, A4 & A7 in Crime No.462/2012 of Chaitanyapuri Police Station, Cyberabad, Rangareddy District for the alleged offences under Sections 120-B, 153-A, 295-A & 420 IPC.
4. Petitioners in Crl.P.No.8245/2012 are A1 to A4 in Crime No.498/2012 of Malkajgiri Police Station, Hyderabad for the alleged offences under Sections 120-B, 153-A, 295-A & 298 IPC.
5. Petitioners in Crl.P.No.8779/2012 are A1 to A4 & A6 in Crime No.507/2012 of Kothapet Police Station, Guntur Urban, Guntur District for the alleged offences under Sections 295-A, 298, 153-A & 120-B IPC.
6. Petitioners in Crl.P.No.8822/2012 are A1 to A4, A6 & 7 in Crime No.336/2012 of Jangaon Police Station, Warangal Rural, Warangal District for the alleged offences under Sections 298, 153-A & 120-B, 420 & 295-A IPC.
7. Petitioners in Crl.P.No.9049/2012 are A1 to A3 & A6 in Crime No.254/2012 of Kodad Town Police Station, Nalgonda District for the alleged offences under Sections 153-A, 295-A & 298 read with 34 IPC.
8. Private complaints are filed in different Courts of the State contending that some scenes in the film “Denikaina Ready” caused humiliation to a particular community in society, which were referred to police for investigation on the basis of which, concerned police have registered F.I.Rs., and challenging them, present petitions are filed.
9. Brief allegations and counter allegations of both parties are as follows:-
Complainants in all these petitions contended that Telugu Feature Film released on 24-10-2012 under the name “Denikaina Ready” caused mental humiliation to Brahmin community because of the scenes shown in the film. According to complainants, some scenes in the film concerned with the Brahmin community were only for the purpose of gaining instant publicity and to insult deliberately and maliciously Brahmins at large, which caused unimaginable damage to them in the society. It is contended that Brahmin was ridiculed and out raged Tilaks, Shika and other traditional dress and non- vegetarian food, which made a mockery of the Vedic rituals. According to petitioners, all the complaints are nothing but grave abuse of process of criminal law and they are given with malafied intention. The film was released, after due certification by Central Board of Film and when a complaint was made to A.P. State Human Rights Commission, certificate issued by the Central Board of Film Certification was confirmed by A.P. State Human Rights Commission observing that the scenes in the film do not hurt the feelings of anybody and therefore, continuation of F.I.Rs would amount to abuse of process of Court.
10. Heard learned Advocate for petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor for second respondent.
11. The main argument of the Advocate for petitioners is that the very initiation of F.I.Rs., against the petitioners is illegal and deserves to be quashed. He further submitted that the entire episode in the film is only a fiction and it is not to hurt the feelings of any one and in fact the film was originally produced in Malayalam in the year 1999 and it was remade in Telugu, which was duly certified by the Central Board of Film Certification for public exhibition and once a certificate was given by a statutory body, the contention of the complainants cannot be accepted. It is further submitted that contention of the complainant that the film is made with malicious intention showing the Brahmin community in an insulting manner is absolutely false and baseless. He submitted that all the characters in the film were all fictional, which was mentioned clearly in the title by way of a disclaimer and continuation of these F.I.Rs would amount to abuse of process of Court. Advocate for petitioners further submitted that a writ was filed at the time of release of this picture raising objection with regard to the self-same scenes and this Court negatived the objections and therefore, initiating criminal action on the basis of the self-same allegation is noting but blackmailing tactics.
12. No one appeared on behalf of complainants in spite of service of notice. No arguments are advanced on behalf of complainants.
13. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that all the F.I.Rs are registered on the basis of private complaints and as there was stay granted, there was no further progress in the investigation.
14. Now the point that would arise for my consideration is whether the F.I.Rs in the above referred Crime Numbers are to be quashed or not?
15. Point:-The offences alleged against the petitioners are mainly; under Sections 153-A, 295-A & 298 IPC. All these offences are in respect of insulting a religion or malicious act with an intention to instigate religious feelings. In all the complaints, the main ground urged is Brahmin community has been ridiculed or out raged by showing some scenes relating to traditional dress and craving for non-vegetarian food. According to complainants, these scenes caused annoyance not only to the complainants, but to whole of the Brahmin community throughout the world and those deliberate acts are prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religions, castes and communities. On the other hand, it is the contention of the petitioners that cinema is a fiction and the roles in the cinema are imaginary and created one and they are not intended towards any religion or community. The other objection of the petitioners is that when there is a statutory board, which examines all these aspects before giving certification, and when a certificate is issued for public exhibition, these objections are not tenable.
16. The entire apprehension of the complainants is that scenes in the film touching Brahmin community would cause annoyance to whole Brahmin community in the world and it is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religions and castes. This film is released in the year 2012 and it was exhibited all over the State in almost all the places and till now, no incidents of breach of communal harmony on account of these scenes are said to have reported. If really, apprehension on the complainants is true and correct by this time, there would have been lot of commotion in the entire State creating communal differences or religious disturbances all over the State. This film is not only exhibited in several theaters in the State, but it is also telecasted in some of the T.V. Channels and no such instances of violence or communal disturbances as apprehended are reported. As rightly pointed out by Advocate for petitioners these scenes are only creative one just for the sake of entertainment and to pass some message in the society to encourage inter caste marriages, inter religion marriages and to keep up brotherhood and humanity. As rightly pointed out by Advocate for petitioners, if there are any scenes aiming insulting, degrading, ridiculing or defaming Brahmin community, the Central Board of Film Certification ought not have issued certificate for public exhibition and only, after satisfying that these scenes are only fictional and created for the purpose of conveying some message through entertainment, the Censor Board issued certificate for public exhibition.
17. I n RAJ KAPOOR vs. LAXMAN
[1]
, Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with a complaint filed against film producer for some objectionable scenes in the film attracting obscenity punishable under Section 292 IPC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
“A complaint for an offence under Section 292 IPC was lodged against the producer, actor, photographer, exhibiter and distributor of the film Satyam Shivam Sundaram. The Magistrate after examining some witnesses took cognizance of the offence and issued notice to the accused. The producer-appellant thereupon moved the High court under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the proceedings on the ground that the film had been duly given ‘A’ certificate by the Central Board of Film Censors under the Cinematograph Act for its exhibition. The High Court having declined to quash the proceedings, the present appeal has been brought before the Supreme Court contending that the film having been certified under the said Act, he was absolved in law under Section 79 IPC in exhibiting it to the public. Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court Held:
An act is justified by law if it is warranted, validated and made blameless by law. Maybe, there is a fine semantic shade between mere legal sanction, which is passive, and clear legal justification which is active. For the work-a-day world of meanings, between ‘permissive’ and ‘justificative’ ‘thin partition do their bounds divide’.
Jurisprudentially viewed, an act may be an offence, definitionally speaking, but a forbidden act may not spell inevitable guilt if the law itself declares that in certain special circumstances it is not to be regarded as an offence. Chapter IV of the Penal Code on General Exceptions operates in this province. Section 79 makes an offence a non-offence only when the offending act is actually justified by law or is bona fide believed by mistake of fact to be so justified.”
18. In Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra and
[2]
another , in a complaint filed against the Printer and Publisher of a Book in respect of some passage in the book relating to an offence under Section 153-A IPC, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
“Section 153A of IPC covers a case where a person by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill- will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities or acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity. The gist of the offence is the intention to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of people. The intention to cause disorder or incite the people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence under Section 153A of IPC and the prosecution has to prove prima facie the existence of mens rea on the part of the accused. The intention has to be judged primarily by the language of the book and the circumstances in which the book was written and published. The matter complained of within the ambit of Section 153A must be read as a whole. One cannot rely on strongly worded and isolated passages for proving the charge nor indeed can one take a sentence here and a sentence there and connect them by a meticulous process of inferential reasoning.
The author has mentioned that BORI, Pune has been his scholarly home in India and many people therein helped him for collecting the material. The author has given the names of many persons, who had helped him in one way or the other and enlightened him about the history of the historical hero 'Shivaji'. The author has also mentioned in the book about the International Conference on Maharashtra, etc., which has given him a lot of material for inclusion in his book. As it appears from the records, BORI, Pune was established almost 90 years back and it has a great tradition of scholarly work. It is very improbable to imagine that any serious and intense scholar will attempt to malign the image of this glorious Institute. The author thought his work to be worth of dedication to his mother Marie Whitwell Laine, which was purely a scholarly pursuit and without any intention or motive to involve himself in trouble. It is the sole responsibility of the State to make positive efforts to resolve every possible conflict between any of the communities, castes or religions within the State and try every possible way to establish peace and harmony within the State under every and all circumstances.
Held, therefore, that the respondents shall not proceed against Professor James W. Laine, the author of the book, for offence under Sections 153, 153A and 34 of the IPC being the subject matter of FIR No.10 of 2004 registered at the Deccan Police Station , Pune.”
19. I n Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P
[3]
, Hon’ble Supreme Court while defining promoting feeling of enmity or hatredness through observed as follows:-
“Section 153A covers a case where a person by "words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations" promotes or attempts to promote such feeling. Under Section 505(2), promotion of such feeling should have been done by making and publishing or circulating any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news. The main distinction between the two offences is that publication of the word or representation is not necessary under the former, such publication is sine qua non under Section 505. The words "whoever makes, publishes or circulates" used in the setting of Section 505(2) cannot be interpreted disjunctively but only as supplementary to each other. If it is construed disjunctively, any one who makes a statement falling within the meaning of Section 505 would, without publication or circulation, be liable to conviction. But the same is the effect with Section 153-A also and then that Section would have been bad for redundancy. The common feature in both sections being promotion of feeling of enmity, hatred or ill-will "between different" religious or racial or linguistic or regional groups or castes and communities, it is necessary that at least two such groups or communities should be involved. Further, it was observed that merely inciting the feeling of one community or group without any reference to any other community or group cannot attract either of the two Sections.”
20. In Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra vs. Govt of NCT of
[4]
Delhi , the Delhi High Court observed as follows:-
“In the present case, this Court finds that the impugned FIR is based on a few expressions and scenes in the film taken in isolation. But the test to determine whether a movie falls foul of freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution is to view the film in its entirety and examine its overall impact. In fact, this Court is of the view that it has to take into consideration what effect the movie is likely to produce on the minds of its viewers for whom the movie was intended.
Also, the effect of the words and scenes have to be judged from the standards of a reasonable, strong minded, firm and courageous man and not from that of a weak and vacillating mind. [See Bhagwati Charan Shukla Vs. Provincial Government, AIR 1947 Nagpur 1.] A FILM THAT CARRIES A MESSAGE THAT THE SOCIAL EVIL IS EVIL CANNOT BE MADE IMPERMISSIBLE ON THE GROUND THAT IT DEPICTS THE SOCIAL EVIL.
Certainly, no film that extols the social evil or encourages it is permissible, but a film that carries a message that the social evil is evil cannot be made impermissible on the ground that it depicts the social evil. [See Bobby Art International & Ors. Vs. Om Pal Singh Hoon & Ors. (supra)].
This Court is of the opinion that the respondent No.2- complainant has committed a fundamental error in not appreciating that a film that carries a message that a social evil is evil, cannot be banned on the ground that it depicts the social evil. It has to be borne in mind that a film that illustrate consequences of social evil, must necessarily show that evil. It is in this context that the expressions 'Bhangan', Saali' and 'Sudhikaran' have been referred to in the film. EFFECT OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY CBFC : SECTION 5-A OF THE CINEMATOGRAPH ACT AND SECTION 79 IPC CONSTITUTE AN EXPRESS LEGAL BAR TO THE INSTITUTION AND CONTINUANCE OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.”
21. From the above rulings, it is clear that when a certificate is issued by Central Board of Film Certification under Section 5 (a) of Cinematography Act, Section 79 IPC is a bar for institution of criminal proceedings and isolated scenes from a film cannot be taken to determine whether the movie is intended to create communal disharmony or to create ill- feelings between some communities and religions, but the entire film as a whole to be taken. The allegations in the complaints are only in respect of same scenes in the film. As already observed those scenes are only imaginary and not intended to lower down any community or religion. For these reasons, I am of the view that the movie is not intended to degrade any particular community and it is only a freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution. When this film was previewed by the members of the Central Board of Film Certification and having satisfied that there is nothing to be prohibited from public exhibition, issued certificate for public exhibition, the allegations in the complaints have to be treaded as baseless and groundless, therefore, continuation of said complaints would amount to abuse of process of Court and they are liable to be quashed.
22. For these reasons, all the petitions are allowed quashing the proceedings in Crime No.462/12 of Chaitanyapuri Police Station, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, Crime No.498/2012 of Malkajgiri Police Station, Hyderabad, Crime No.336/2012 of Janagon Police Station, Warangal, Crime No.507/2012 of Kothapet Police Station, Guntur and Crime No.254/2012 of Kodad Town Police Station, Nalgonda.
23. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Criminal Petitions, shall stand disposed of.
Date:14.08.2014 mrb
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
(1980) 2 Supreme Court Cases 175
2007 (2) ALD (Crl.) 682 (SC)
1997 AIR SCW 3574
LAWS (DLH)-2013-1-1/ILRDLH-2013-23-1