Recently, the Delhi High Court examined a petition challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, which had affirmed the dismissal by the Judicial Magistrate of the petitioner’s application for registration of an FIR. The matter concerns allegations that paintings displayed in the exhibition “Hussain: The Timeless Modernist” at the Delhi Art Gallery insulted Hindu religious sentiments, raising questions about the scope of mandatory police investigation under Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner attended the exhibition and alleged that certain paintings depicted Hindu deities offensively, aimed at outraging religious feelings. She complained and sought preservation of CCTV footage along with seizure of the allegedly offensive paintings and related digital recording equipment. Though these items were seized, the Trial Court dismissed her FIR application. The Sessions Court also rejected the petitioner’s subsequent revision.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the Courts erred in not ordering registration of an FIR under established legal precedent, as a cognizable offence under the relevant section was clearly disclosed. The Petitioner Counsel urged for a police investigation to verify the authenticity of the paintings, probe any malicious intent, and investigate potential tampering with evidence. The Counsel emphasised the exhibition’s public nature and the widespread attention it received as reasons for prompt intervention.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The counsel for the respondents contended that no prima facie cognizable offence was made out and that all evidentiary material had already been secured. The counsel submitted that a police investigation was therefore unnecessary at this stage, and that the trial process would be the appropriate forum to examine the facts, assess evidence, and determine intent.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that the offence alleged under the relevant section “essentially hinges upon whether the act complained of was intended to outrage religious feelings.” This assessment depends on the contents of the paintings and the circumstances of their display, all of which were already before the Court, as the paintings themselves had been seized. At this stage, the Court noted, “no specialised police investigation is necessary to ascertain the existence of the offence,” and questions of authenticity, intent, or possible tampering could be considered at trial. The Trial Court retains the power to requisition police aid if further assistance is needed.
The Court further stated that while exercising powers under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, a Magistrate must ensure that “a cognizable offence is disclosed from the allegations mentioned in the application and the essential elements of the alleged offences, thereof, are prima facie satisfied.” The Magistrate may consider the complaint and any police reports explaining inaction on prior complaints, which constitutes a preliminary inquiry, before deciding whether to direct registration of an FIR.
Highlighting the importance of judicial restraint, the Court emphasised that FIRs should not be registered routinely without careful evaluation and cautioned against complainants using the legal process for “fishing expeditions.” Only complaints that clearly disclose a cognizable offence should warrant investigation.
The Decision of the Court:
As a result, the petition was dismissed, with the court holding that in the absence of a clear prima facie offence requiring police probe, registration of an FIR is not mandatory. The Court further clarified that only individuals whose religious sentiments are directly affected are entitled to seek legal remedy under the relevant provisions.
Case Title: Amita Sachdeva V. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors
Case No.: Crl. M.C. 6388/2025 & Crl. M.A. 26987/2025, Crl. M.A. 26988/2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Amit Mahajan
Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv. Makarand D. Adkar, Adv. Vikram Kumar, Adv. Yadavendra Saxena, Adv. Mayank Dwivedi and Adv. Abhinav Kumar.
Counsel for the Respondents: APP for the State Raj Kumar with SI Sudeep, PS Parliament Street, New Delhi
Sr. Adv. Madhav Khurrana, with Adv. Shivam Batra, Adv. Rony John, Adv. Piyush Swami, Adv. Teeksh and Adv. Ibrahim.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
