Sari designs featuring Buddha images cannot alone sustain a 295A case without deliberate intent to insult, Gujarat High Court rules

The complainant, President of the Samast Yuva Ambedkar Samaj, alleged that sarees and textile material bearing images of Gautam Buddha near the garments’ lower border or pallu were being sold in Surat.

The applicant, a saree and dress-material trader, was accused of involvement in the sale. An FIR was registered at Salabatpura Police Station on 21 December 2017 under Sections 295A read with 114 of the IPC. The applicant sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC, contending that the FIR did not disclose the required deliberate and malicious intent and that the images were part of ordinary commercial activity.

The complainant and State opposed quashing, submitting that the photographs supported a prima facie case and that the matter should proceed to trial.

Whether the FIR and accompanying material, taken at face value, disclosed the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 295A IPC against the applicant

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings

Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice. Under State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, illustrative grounds for intervention include cases where the allegations, accepted at face value, do not constitute an offence, where the allegations are inherently improbable, or where proceedings are maliciously instituted.

Section 295A IPC penalises only an aggravated insult to religion or religious beliefs committed with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of a class; careless or unintentional conduct does not suffice. The Court relied on Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P., as discussed in Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar.

The Court considered the photographs and the police report, which indicated that the applicant had allegedly obtained or sold textile material bearing the images, and that similar material was sold by others in Surat.

It concluded that the material did not suggest a deliberate and malicious act intended to insult religious beliefs. In the Court’s view, the sale of garments with religious imagery, without an overtly denigrating act or other evidence of such intent, did not establish the mens rea required by Section 295A. The allegations therefore failed to disclose a prima facie offence against the applicant, and continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process.

It allowed the application and quashed the FIR and all consequential criminal proceedings qua the applicant; the Rule was made absolute.