Radhika Rao And Ors. vs State Of Punjab And Another

CRM-M-57632-2023 (O&M) 1-
125
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-57632-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision 07.09.2026
RADHIKA RAO AND OTHERS
...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL
Argued by: Mr. Tajeshwar Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Hardeep Singh Wadhwa, DAG Punjab.
Sr. No. Particulars
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 21.08.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 07.09.2026
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on 08.09.2026
the website
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment Full
is pronounced or full judgment is pronounced
5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of Not applicable
full judgment and reasons thereof
*
SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J.
1. Prayer in the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to quash FIR
No. 85 dated 30.08.2023 under Section 295-A Indian Penal Code, Police
Station Division 4, Police Commissionerate, Jalandhar, Punjab and all
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The FIR was registered on complaint of Harpreet Singh @
Neetu son of Mahinder Singh who reported that T Series Company released
a song from ‘ Yaarian 2 ’ film on Youtube wherein a clean shaven artist
SUMIT SINGLA
2026.09.08 17:10
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-M-57632-2023 (O&M) -2-
named Neezaan Jafri was wearing Sri Sahib against Sikh customs. Sri Sahib
was a part of holy Five Kakaars of Sikh religion and it was mandatory for a
person to be Amritdhari, as per Sikh customs, to wear the same. The song
was filmed by Director Radhika Rao and Vinay Sapru deliberately, to hurt
Sikh sentiments. The producer Bhushan Kumar was also responsible. By this
act, his religious sentiments and those of the Sikh community were hurt.
Legal action was prayed for.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that FIR No.108
dated 31.08.2023, P.S. Division E Police Commissionerate Amritsar under
Section 295-A IPC was registered against the petitioner regarding the same
incident, on identical allegations. Present FIR, on the same allegations was
thus, not sustainable in view of law laid down by T.T. Antony Vs. State of
Kerala, Criminal Appeal No.689 of 2001 arising out SLP (Crl.) No.1522 of
2000, date of decision 12.07.2001 and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. The
Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, Writ Petition (Criminal)
No.149 of 2012, date of decision 08.04.2013 . It was further canvassed that
the facts alleged in the FIR did not make out ingredients of the offence under
Section 295-A IPC as there was neither any deliberate or malicious intention
of outraging the religious feelings of a class of citizens nor an attempt to
insult the religious beliefs of any class. At best, act of the petitioners could
be said to be done carelessly or unwittingly, without deliberate or malicious
intention, as petitioners lacked motive to outrage religious sentiments of the
Sikh community. The portrayal of a non- Amritdhari person wearing Sri Sikh
Sahib was only on account of lack of knowledge of religious customs rather
than an attempt to insult the religion or beliefs of any particular class. The
portrayal in question did not explicitly or implicitly convey any derogatory
SUMIT SINGLA
2026.09.08 17:10
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-M-57632-2023 (O&M) -3-
or disrespectful message towards the Sikh faith or its symbol.
4. It was further argued that portrayal in the song fell within the 4
corners of artistic expression and creative freedom rather than an act
intended to insult religious beliefs. Last submission of learned counsel for
the petitioners was that the visuals in question had been removed and
petitioners had already apologized and acknowledged the inadvertent
mistake, committed without intention to hurt religious sentiments. They also
assured that no such mistake would be repeated in future. Thus, the subject
FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom were liable to be
quashed, in the interest of justice, equity and good faith. To support his
submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners refers to Ramji Lal Modi
Vs. State of U.P., Petition No.252 of 1956, date of decision 05.04.1957,
Mahendra Singh Dhoni Vs. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar, Transfer Petition
(Criminal) No.23 of 2016, date of decision 20.04.2017, Priya Prakash
Varrier and Others Vs. State of Telangana and Another, Writ Petition
(Criminal) No.44 of 2018, date of decision 31.08.2018, Tilak Raj Vs. State
of Punjab and Another, CRM-M-46173 of 2019, date of decision
28.02.2020, Gurnam Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, CRM-M-
7975-2017, date of decision 05.09.2023, Aash Mohammad Vs. State of
Haryana and Others, CWP No.9048 of 2017, date of decision 01.05.2017,
Jai Ram Sharma Vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-23808-1996, date of
decision 22.05.1997, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Sanjay Leela Bhansali and
Others, Writ Petition (Criminal) No.191 of 2017, date of decision
28.11.2017, State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335 and Saint Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Insan Vs. State
of Punjab and Another, CRM-M-12638-2023, date of decision 30.10.2023.
SUMIT SINGLA
2026.09.08 17:10
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-M-57632-2023 (O&M) -4-
5. State of Punjab has filed reply to the petition. Learned State
counsel argues that the depiction of a clean shaven actor wearing Sri Sahib
in his neck against Sikh customs without wearing turban, hurt the religious
feelings of the complainant and members of Sikh community and petitioners
being the director, producer and actor of the film, responsible for creating
the song were liable to be prosecuted in the Court of law. In view of the
specific allegations against the petitioners of hurting religious feelings, the
FIR could not be quashed at the inception, when investigation was yet
pending.
6. Respondent No.2 initially appeared to contest the petition but
later, did not opt to contest.
7. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in State of Haryana Vs.
Bhajan Lal AIR 195 SC 604, has considered all earlier precedents and has
laid down the principles, which the High Court must consider, while
exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
proceedings. Following observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court need to be
reproduced:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the
principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we
give the following categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse
of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
SUMIT SINGLA
2026.09.08 17:10
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-M-57632-2023 (O&M) -5-
justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise,
clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of
myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against
the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code
except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview
of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
SUMIT SINGLA
2026.09.08 17:10
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-M-57632-2023 (O&M) -6-
which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act
concerned, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge."
8. Section 295-A of the IPC which criminalises and punishes
deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any
class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs is reproduced as under for
the facility of reference:-
“295A. Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to
outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion
or religious beliefs.—Whoever, with deliberate and malicious
intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of
[citizens of India], [by words, either spoken or written, or by
signs or by visible representations or otherwise], insults or
attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that
SUMIT SINGLA
2026.09.08 17:10
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-M-57632-2023 (O&M) -7-
class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to [three years], or with fine, or
with both.”
9. From the above, following ingredients of the offence can be
deduced:-
(i) the accused must insult or attempt to insult the religion
or religious beliefs of any class of citizens of India;
(ii) the said insult must be with a deliberate and malicious
intention of outraging the religious feelings of the said class of
citizens; and
(iii) the said insult must be by words, either spoken or written,
by signs or by visible representation or otherwise.
10. The petitioners, who are the director, actor and producer of the
movie “ Yaarian 2 ” are sought to be prosecuted for portraying a non-
Amritdhari actor (petitioner No.3) wearing “ Sri Sahib/Kirpan ” one of the 5
religious ‘ Kakaars’ of the Sikh religion, in a song released on Youtube.
Complainant has claimed that the said portrayal hurt his religious sentiments
as well as those of the Sikh community. To bring a charge under Section
295-A IPC, it needs to be demonstrated that the act complained of
tantamounts to an insult or attempt to insult the religion or religious beliefs
of a class of citizens and the act was driven by a deliberate and malicious
motive. The act done must be such as would be regarded by an ordinary
prudent mind as grossly offensive, provocative, malicious and deliberately
intended to outrage feeling of any class of citizens of India. While upholding
the constitutional validity of Section 295-A IPC, Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in Ramji Lal Modi Vs. State of U.P., Petition No.252 of 1956, date of
SUMIT SINGLA
2026.09.08 17:10
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-M-57632-2023 (O&M) -8-
decision 05.04.1957 has observed as under:-
“Section 295A does not penalise any and every act of insult to
or attempt to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of a
class of citizens but it penalises only those acts of insults to or
those varieties of attempts to insult the religion or the religious
beliefs of a class of citizens, which are perpetrated with the
deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious
feelings of that class. Insults to religion offered unwittingly or
carelessly or without any deliberate or malicious intention to
outrage the religious feelings of that class do not come within
the section. It only punishes the aggravated form of insult to
religion when it is perpetrated with the deliberate and
malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that
class.”
11. In Mahendra Singh Dhoni Vs. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar,
Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.23 of 2016, date of decision 20.04.2017,
complainant purchased monthly business magazine and was disappointed
with the main page of the magazine carrying painting of petitioner with the
caption “ God of Big Deals ”. There was a description underneath which had
the characters of advertising. In the context of publication, Hon’ble Supreme
Court held as under:-
“Section 295A does not stipulate everything to be penalised and
any and every act would tantamount to insult or attempt to
insult the religion or the religious beliefs of class of citizens. It
penalises only those acts of insults to or those varieties of
attempts to insult the religion or religious belief of a class of
SUMIT SINGLA
2026.09.08 17:10
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-M-57632-2023 (O&M) -9-
citizens which are perpetrated with the deliberate and
malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that
class of citizens. Insults to religion offered unwittingly or
carelessly or without any deliberate or malicious intention to
outrage the religious feelings of that class do not come within
the Section.”
12. Still further, in Priya Prakash Varrier and Others Vs. State of
Telangana and Another, Writ Petition (Criminal) No.44 of 2018, date of
decision 31.08.2018, a version of a traditional Muslim song from the
Malabar religion of Kerala sung in various parts of the State of Kerala was
picturized as a part of the motive on actress Priya Prakash Varrier with a
wink. FIR was lodged alleging the same to be blasphemous and offending
the sentiments of a particular community. Hon’ble Supreme Court held,
relying upon Constitution Bench judgment in Ramji Lal Modi Vs. State of
U.P. (supra) and Mahendra Singh Dhoni Vs. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar,
(supra) held as under:
“........ the picturization of the said song solely because of the
'wink' would not tantamount to an insult or attempt to insult the
religion or the religious beliefs of a class of citizens. The said
song has been on Youtube since February, 2018. We do not
perceive that any calculated tendency is adopted by the
petitioners to insult or to disturb public order to invite the
wrath of section 295A of the IPC. “
13. Three-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manohar Lal
Sharma v. Sanjay Leela Bhansali and Others (2018) 1 SCC 770, observed
thus:-
SUMIT SINGLA
2026.09.08 17:10
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-M-57632-2023 (O&M) -10-
"A story told on celluloid or a play enacted on a stage or a
novel articulated in a broad and large canvas or epic spoken
with eloquence or a poem sung with passion or recited with
rhythm has many a layer of freedom of expression of thought
that requires innovation, skill, craftsmanship and, above all,
individual originality founded on the gift of imagination or
reality transformed into imagination or vice versa. The platform
can be different and that is why, the creative instinct is
respected and has the inherent protective right from within
which is called artistic license."
14. Examining the contents of the FIR in the context of the
provisions of Section 295-A IPC reproduced hereinabove, in the light of
binding judicial precedents, the Court is of the considered opinion that the
act attributed to the petitioners i.e. picturization of a song showing a non-
Amritdhari Sikh wearing a ‘Sri Sahib/Kirpan’ cannot be termed as an insult
to the Sikh religion. The song picturized in a movie is an expression of
creative liberty, artistic instinct and the inadvertent portrayal of Sri Sikh
Sahib, one of the 5 religious ‘ Kakaars’ of the Sikh religion, cannot be
construed as a deliberate, malicious act intended to hurt the religious
feelings of the complainant or other members of the religious community.
The act attributed cannot be regarded by an ordinary prudent mind as grossly
offensive or provocative. Also a grievance expressed by an individual
belonging to Sikh community cannot portray the sentiments of the entire
community. Mens rea which is an essential element in the criminal offence is
found lacking and the act complained of is clearly outside the purview of
Section 295-A IPC.
SUMIT SINGLA
2026.09.08 17:10
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-M-57632-2023 (O&M) -11-
15. An additional fact to be noticed is that the petitioners have
already issued an apology that they had no intention to hurt any religious
sentiments and had removed the objectionable visuals/scenes from the film
which may hurt the sentiments of complainant and/or members of Sikh
community.
16. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioners has also brought on record copy of order dated 28.10.2024 in
CRM-M-57708-2023 titled ‘ Radhika Rao and Others Vs. State of Punjab
and Another ’ in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.
108 dated 31.08.2023 under Section 295-A IPC, P.S. Division No. E, Police
Commissionerate, Amritsar, Punjab and all consequential proceedings
arising therefrom. He submits that present FIR too was registered with
regard to same song in “ Yaarian 2 ” against the director, producer and actor
of the film.
16. Undoubtedly, there cannot be a second FIR in respect of the
same offence. The FIR regarding which the other petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C. was instituted, was subsequent one, registered on 31.08.2025. FIR in
the present case was registered on 30.08.2023, prior in time. Therefore, the
argument that the police could not investigate the case with regard to same
offence is not available to the petitioners.
17. Be that as it may, the present case squarely falls within the
parameters of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of
Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (supra) for quashing of an FIR as the allegations
made in the FIR, accepted in their entirety, do not constitute any offence.
18. The petition is allowed. FIR No. 85 dated 30.08.2023 under
Section 295-A Indian Penal Code, Police Station Division 4, Police
SUMIT SINGLA
2026.09.08 17:10
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-M-57632-2023 (O&M) -12-
and all consequential proceedings arising
Commissionerate, Jalandhar, Punjab
therefrom, a re quashed qua the petitioners.
19. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)
07.09.2026 JUDGE
Sumit Singla
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes
SUMIT SINGLA
2026.09.08 17:10
I agree to specified portions
of this document