Mumbai, April 30: The Bombay High Court on Thursday quashed a 2010 FIR registered against actor and television judge Shekhar Suman and comedian Bharti Singh over alleged remarks made in a comedy show, holding that no offence of hurting religious sentiments was made out.
FIR linked to 2010 comedy show
The FIR was registered at Pydhonie Police Station under Section 295-A (outraging religious feelings) read with Section 34 of the IPC, based on a complaint filed by a representative of the Raza Academy. The complaint pertained to an episode of the show “Comedy Circus Ka Jadoo” aired in November 2010.
Justice Amit Borkar allowed the petitions filed by Suman and Singh seeking quashing of the FIRs against them, noting that the programme was a “light entertainment” show and must be viewed in its proper context.
Court cites lack of malicious intent
“A comedy show is not judged by the same standards as a doctrinal speech or a political statement. A performance of this nature is to be read as a whole, and not by selecting stray expressions,” the court observed.
The bench noted that for an offence under Section 295-A, there must be a “deliberate and malicious intention” to outrage religious feelings.
“Both elements are necessary. If one of them is absent, the offence will not be fully made out,” the court said, adding that the material on record did not show such intent on the part of either Suman or Singh.
Feeling offended not enough: HC
It further held that merely because some viewers may have felt offended, it would not be sufficient to invoke criminal law. “Offence felt by a section of viewers is not enough in law unless the mental element is also disclosed,” the court observed.
The court also considered the roles of the petitioners, noting that Suman was only a judge on the show, while Singh was performing as part of a scripted act. It found no material to show that they had any intention to insult a religion or shared any common design to do so.
Also Watch:
Proceedings quashed
Further, the court also remarked that the prosecution had not taken prior sanction under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is mandatory for offences under Section 295-A.
Rejecting the State’s argument that the case should go to trial, the court said, “Trial is not a substitute for legal foundation. When the complaint itself does not disclose the ingredients, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to misuse of process.”
The court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
