Punjab and Haryana High Court quashes FIR over ‘Yaarian 2’ kirpan portrayal, finds no deliberate or malicious insult under Section 295-A IPC

The petitioners—director, producer and actor associated with the film Yaarian 2—invoked Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 85 dated 30.08.2023, registered under Section 295-A IPC at Police Station Division 4, Jalandhar, and all consequential proceedings.

The FIR alleged that a song released on YouTube depicted a clean-shaven actor wearing a Sri Sahib/Kirpan, one of the Sikh Five Kakaars, despite not being shown as Amritdhari, thereby hurting Sikh religious sentiments.

The petitioners contended that the depiction was inadvertent, lacked deliberate or malicious intent, and that the objectionable visuals had subsequently been removed and an apology issued.

They also relied on another FIR concerning the same song and incident, alleging that the subsequent FIR was impermissible.

The State opposed quashing on the ground that the allegations disclosed an offence and that investigation was pending.

The Court applied Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings under State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which permit quashing where the allegations, taken at face value, do not constitute an offence or where continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process.

Section 295-A IPC requires: (i) an insult or attempted insult to the religion or religious beliefs of a class of citizens; (ii) a deliberate and malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of that class; and (iii) the insult to be conveyed through words, signs, visible representations or otherwise.

Relying on Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P. and Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar, the Court held that unwitting, careless or non-malicious acts do not fall within Section 295-A.

It further relied on Priya Prakash Varrier v. State of Telangana concerning the absence of calculated tendency to insult religious beliefs, and Manohar Lal Sharma v. Sanjay Leela Bhansali recognising artistic freedom and artistic licence in creative works.

The principle against a second FIR for the same offence was considered with reference to the petitioners’ submissions based on T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI.

The Court held that the FIR did not allege facts establishing the essential mens rea under Section 295-A IPC.

Although the depiction of a non-Amritdhari actor wearing a Sri Sahib/Kirpan could have offended the complainant, the material did not show that it was grossly offensive, provocative, deliberate or maliciously intended to outrage Sikh religious feelings.

The portrayal occurred in a film song and was treated as an inadvertent exercise of creative or artistic expression, without any derogatory or disrespectful message directed at the Sikh faith.

The Court also observed that the grievance of one individual could not, by itself, establish the sentiments of the entire Sikh community, and that the petitioners’ apology and removal of the visuals further supported the absence of malicious intent.

The objection based on the second FIR was rejected because the FIR in the present case was registered first, on 30.08.2023, whereas the other FIR was subsequent; therefore, the petitioners could not contend that the present investigation was barred on that ground.

Nevertheless, the FIR independently satisfied the Bhajan Lal category where the allegations, even if accepted, do not disclose any offence.

It held that the alleged depiction did not constitute a deliberate and malicious insult to Sikh religion or religious beliefs under Section 295-A IPC and that the allegations, taken at face value, failed to disclose any offence.

Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was allowed, and FIR No. 85 dated 30.08.2023 registered at Police Station Division 4, Jalandhar, along with all consequential proceedings, was quashed qua the petitioners.

Pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.