Bombay High Court: In the writ petitions filed by the Programming Head of the Marathi television channel “Star Pravah” and Star Entertainment Media Private Limited (SEMPL) and its Executive Producer, seeking quashment of FIR registered against them for alleged offences under Section 295-A of the IPC (Penal Code, 1860), Section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SCST Act), a Division Bench of Manish Pitale* and Manjusha Deshpande, JJ., quashed the FIR against the TV Channel Executives and held that “mere use or reference to the name of a caste… cannot in itself constitute an offence, unless it is referred to or used intentionally to inflict insult, intimidation or humiliation.”
In the instant matter, a FIR was lodged against the petitioners alleging that an episode of a Marathi serial titled “Laxmi versus Saraswati”, aired on 22-08-2012, contained objectionable caste-related words. It was alleged that a character in the serial used the words “mhara-poranchi” in a dialogue meant to ward off the evil eye. According to the complainant, the said expression referred to members of the Mahar caste and was used in conjunction with words such as “bhuta-khetachi”, thereby amounting to a deliberate caste abuse intended to humiliate members of a Scheduled Caste in public view. Apart from the petitioners, the FIR also named the director, script writer, and actor associated with the serial, which was produced by Reliance Broadcast Network Limited (RBNL).
The Court examined the FIR, the statements of the informant, and the statutory provisions invoked and noted that although the FIR referred generally to Section 3 of the SCST Act, the parties were ad idem that the relevant provision was Section 3(1)(x) as it stood prior to amendment.
The Court observed that for the offence to be made out under Section 3(1)(x), the following essential ingredients must coexist —
-
The accused must not be a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe;
-
There must be intentional insult or intimidation;
-
Such act must be with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe;
-
The act must occur in any place within public view.
On a plain reading of the FIR, the Court found that there was no allegation whatsoever that the petitioners were not members of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, an omission which went to the root of the offence. The Court held that a company such as SEMPL could never be arraigned as an accused under Section 3(1)(x), as the provision applied only to individuals.
The Court held that even prima facie, no intentional act could be attributed to the petitioners. The Court noted that the objectionable words were admittedly uttered by an actor playing a role in the serial and the petitioners’ role was limited to broadcasting the serial, and asserted that “it cannot even be alleged that the petitioners before this Court uttered the objectionable words, much less intentionally uttered such words”.
The Court emphasised that mere use or reference to the name of a caste does not by itself constitute an offence, unless it is shown to be used intentionally to insult or humiliate a specific individual belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
With regard to Section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, the Court noted that there was not even an allegation that the petitioners insulted the informant on the ground of untouchability. Similarly, in respect of Section 295-A IPC, the Court reiterated that the offence requires a “deliberate and malicious intention”, which was conspicuously absent in the present case.
Relying on Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 620 and Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerranguntla Shyamsundar, (2017) 7 SCC 760, the Court reiterated that “unless the objectionable act is at least prima facie found to be deliberate and malicious, criminal prosecution ought not to follow.”
Applying the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Court held that the case squarely fell within the category where “the allegations made in the FIR, even if taken at their face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence”.
The Court allowed both writ petitions and quashed FIR against the TV Channel Executives.
[Shrabani Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition Nos. 4546 & 4547 of 2013, Decided on 23-12-2025]
*Judgment by Justice Manish Pitale
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Satish Mane-Shinde, Senior Advocate, a/w Ms. Sulabha V. Rane and Mr. Nikhil Mane-Shinde, Counsel for the Petitioner n WP/4546/ 2013.
Mr. Sanjog Parab, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr. Mohan Rao, Ms. Sakshi Baadkar and Mr. Sangram Parab, Counsel for the Petitioner in in WP/4547/ 2013
Ms. Sharmila Kaushik, APP, Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and 2
Mr. Milind A. Ingole a/w Ms. Aishwarya Gaikwad and Ms. Manisha Bansode, Counsel for the Respondent No. 3
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
