Bombay High Court: In a petition challenging the registration of an FIR under Section 295-A read with Section 34, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), a Single Judge Bench of Amit Borkar, J., examined the content of the television programme “Comedy Circus Ka Jadoo” wherein the complaint alleged that the expressions “Ya Allah! Rasgulla! Dahi Bhalla!” used during the show offended religious sentiments. The Court held that these words, spoken in rhyme and comic effect, did not disclose any deliberate or malicious intent to outrage religious feelings as they are common food items consumed across communities and carry no religious colour. Concluding that the FIR lacked the essential ingredients of the offence and that sanction under Section 196, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) had not been obtained, the Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings.
Background
The FIR was registered following a complaint alleging that expressions such as “Ya Allah! Rasgulla! Dahi Bhalla!” used in a comedy show offended religious sentiments. The programme was described as family-oriented entertainment, intended to provide comic relief without any nexus to real-life incidents or public affairs.
The petitioners argued that the programme was light-hearted entertainment, devoid of any deliberate or malicious intent to insult religion. They emphasised that food items like “Dahi Bhalla” and “Rasgulla” are neutral expressions without religious connotation, and that sanction under Section 196 CrPC was a mandatory prerequisite, which was absent.
The State contended that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and that the matter should proceed to trial for appreciation of evidence.
Analysis
The Court emphasised that it cannot ignore the context of the programme, since a comedy show is not judged by the same standards as a doctrinal speech or a political statement, and a performance of this nature is to be read as a whole and not by selecting stray expressions from it. The Court highlighted that the provision of Section 295-A IPC is not attracted by every utterance which may annoy some person or group, as the language of the section itself speaks of deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of a class of citizens, and both elements are necessary.
The Court noted that the intention must be deliberate, and it must also be malicious, and if one of them is absent, the offence will not be fully made out. The Court observed that in the present case, from the complaint and from the episode as described, there is no material showing such deliberate or malicious intention on the part of either petitioner, as the performance appears to have been made in a theatrical manner with the object of entertainment, and that does not by itself create criminality.
The Court noted that the words by themselves are neutral in ordinary social use, and mere mention of food items in a comic act cannot amount to insult of religion. However, something more is required, as there must be material to show that the words were selected as a weapon of offence.
The Court referred to Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P., (1957) 1 SCC 591, wherein it was held that the protection of Section 295-A IPC is confined to acts which are deliberate and malicious, and expressions which are lacking in the intention would not fall within the section, and even if the complaint is taken at its face value, the material does not show an intention to outrage the religious feelings of any class, as it suggests that some viewers may have felt offended by the style of expression used in the performance, but offence felt by a section of viewers is not enough in law unless the mental element is also disclosed.
The Court emphasised that the background of the programme also assumes importance, as the show was telecast as a family entertainment programme and had been running for a considerable time. The Court observed that a performing artist on such stage also performs according to the script of the episode, and the record does not disclose that the petitioner judges personally authored the expressions, as the role attributed to them is too remote to bring them within the purview of offences alleged by the complainant.
The Court highlighted that the role of the petitioners as a judge and a performing artist was too remote to establish common intention under Section 34 IPC. It was further observed that no sanction under Section 196 CrPC had been obtained, which was a mandatory requirement. The Court stressed that criminal law should not be invoked casually against artists or programme judges merely because some viewers felt offended.
Decision
The Court held that, in view of the discussion and reasons recorded, both the criminal writ petitions were allowed. The Court further held that the FIR registered with Pydhonie Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 295-A read with Section 34 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, stood quashed and set aside.
The Court thereby made the rule absolute with no order as to costs.
[Shekhar Suman v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 1902 of 2012, decided on 29-4-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Niteen Pradhan, Senior Advocate with P. D. Desai
For the Respondent: Megha Bajoria, APP for State
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
