'No Malicious Intention': P&H High Court Quashes FIR Against Actor Rajkumar Rao Over 'Hurting Religious Sentiments' During Film Promotion

While quashing an FIR against Bollywood actor Rajkumar Rao over allegations of hurting religious sentiments through a promotional poster of the film “Behen Hogi Teri”, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that mere depiction in a creative work, absent deliberate and malicious intent, does not attract criminal liability under Section 295-A IPC.The plea sought quashing of FIR lodged under IPC Sections 295A(Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs), 120B (criminal conspiracy) and Section 67 IT Act in Punjab's Jalandhar along with non-bailable warrants against him. Justice H.S. Grewal noted, "The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that artistic and creative expression occupies a protected sphere under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Criminal prosecution in relation to films, creative works and artistic depictions can be sustained only when the statutory ingredients of the alleged offences are clearly made out. The threshold for such prosecution is necessarily high, particularly where the work has already undergone statutory censorship and certification."The Court was dealing with a batch of petitions seeking quashing of FIR dated April 19, 2017, registered at Police Station Division No. 5, Jalandhar, under Sections 295-A and 120-B IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, along with the consequential proceedings, including issuance of non-bailable warrants.BackgroundThe FIR was lodged on the basis of a complaint alleging that the petitioners—including the actor and film producers—had outraged the religious sentiments of Hindus by portraying Lord Shiva in a “cartoonist manner” in a promotional poster circulated on social media.After investigation, a challan was filed in 2022 against the actor, director and producers of the film.The central question before the Court was whether criminal prosecution could be sustained solely on the basis of a promotional poster, particularly when the film had already been granted certification by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).Court's FindingsThe Court held that the essential ingredient of “deliberate and malicious intention” required to constitute an offence under Section 295-A IPC was completely absent in the present case.It observed that there was no "prima facie material on record" to indicate any intention on the part of the petitioners to insult or outrage religious sentiments.It said that "mere objection or protest by individuals" cannot by itself be treated as proof of deliberate intention to outrage relifigous sentiments. It further said that the depiction in question formed part of a cinematographic work and was used in the course of legitimate creative and promotional activity.The Court also noted that some of the petitioners themselves belonged to the Hindu faith and were devotees of Lord Shiva, further negating allegations of deliberate insult.Section 67 IT Act Not AttractedRejecting the applicability of Section 67 of the IT Act, the Court held that the promotional material did not contain any element of obscenity, lasciviousness, or prurient content.It emphasized that the grievance in the FIR was related to alleged hurt to religious sentiments—not obscenity—and therefore the statutory ingredients of the provision were not satisfied.Significance of CBFC CertificationThe Court underscored that the film had already been granted a 'UA' certificate by the CBFC after due scrutiny under the Cinematograph Act, 1952.It held that certification by a statutory expert body carries legal sanctity and cannot be lightly disregarded. Once a film has undergone such scrutiny, criminal prosecution cannot be initiated merely on the basis of subjective perceptions of certain individuals.Conspiracy Charge Also FailsSince the substantive offences were not made out, the Court held that the charge under Section 120-B IPC (criminal conspiracy) could not survive independently in the absence of any material showing an agreement to commit an illegal act.Freedom of ExpressionReaffirming the constitutional protection accorded to artistic expression under Article 19(1)(a), the Court observed that criminal prosecution in matters involving films and creative works must meet a high threshold.It cautioned that allowing such prosecutions without satisfying statutory requirements would amount to an abuse of the process of law.Invoking its inherent powers to prevent abuse of process, the Court quashed the FIR, the challan, and all consequential proceedings against the petitioners.The Court held that continuation of the criminal case, in the absence of essential ingredients of the alleged offences, would be unjustified and legally untenable.Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tejeshwar Singh, Advocate, Mr. Subhash Jadhav, Advocate and Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-39247-2025.Mr. J.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in...

'No Malicious Intention': P&H High Court Quashes FIR Against Actor Rajkumar Rao Over 'Hurting Religious Sentiments' During Film Promotion

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

'No Malicious Intention': P&H High Court Quashes FIR Against Actor Rajkumar Rao Over 'Hurting Religious Sentiments' During Film Promotion

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers