The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed the FIR that was brought against Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, the leader of Dera Sacha Sauda, for allegedly disparaging the religious beliefs of Sant Kabir Das and the followers of Guru Ravidas and held that in order to file a complaint under Section 295A of the IPC, it must be shown that the insult was maliciously motivated, deliberate, and intended only to offend someone. It is not possible to prosecute criticism that is not severe or speech that does not seriously hurt someone's religious feelings in a community.
Brief Facts:
An FIR was filed over a speech given by the petitioner - Ram Rahim during a "Satsang" in 2016, during which he reportedly linked Sant Sant Kabir Das and Guru Ravidas to prostitution and alcohol. The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C for quashing of the FIR.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the petition contended that the case lacks the intended malicious purpose to offend a specific community's religious beliefs and the intent to offend religious sentiments, both of which are requirements for an offense under Section 295A of the IPC.
The counsel for the petitioner added that the petitioner's speech in question, along with the example he gave from the lives of Sant Kabir Das and Guru Ravidas, were carefully examined, and it was revealed that the purpose of these was to deepen the disciples' faith in their spiritual masters and promote spiritual understanding.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it is a matter of record that the petitioner is a man of criminal antecedents and is presently serving sentence for a heinous offence. Furthermore, numerous cases of similar nature are currently pending against the petitioner; therefore, it was all the more essential that the investigation be first completed in the present case.
Observations of the Court:
The bench, following the submission of arguments, deliberated on whether the speech in question, which discussed an event between Sant Kabir Das and Guru Ravidas, would be deemed blasphemous under Section 295A of the IPC.
It was stated that in order to file a complaint under Section 295A of the IPC, it must be shown that the insult was maliciously motivated, deliberate, and intended only to offend someone. It is not possible to prosecute criticism that is not severe or speech that does not seriously hurt someone's religious feelings in a community. The bench noted that Section 295A of the IPC aims to achieve a compromise between the protection of religious emotions and the right to free expression.
Following an analysis of the discourse's historical allusions, the Court concluded that there is no proof of any fabrication or misrepresentation in the episode pertaining to Sant Kabir Das's life and the complainant had chosen and removed disparate passages from the conversation and presented them out of context while filing the FIR.
Furthermore, the historical materials that are appended to the petition have not been disputed by the State or the complaint. The bench noted that the story cannot be deemed to have been provided with any malicious purpose because it is not the petitioner's invention and does not contain any inflated components.
Further it was stated the Court can use its inherent authority under Section 482 of the CrPC to stop pointless or unwarranted criminal cases from continuing. The discretion and authority granted to this Court by Section 482 of the CrPC are intended to prevent improper use of the judicial system.
The decision of the Court:
In this instance, the court allowed the petitioner and accordingly the FIR filed under Section 295A of the IPC along with all consequential proceedings were quashed.
Case Title: Saint Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Insav v. State of Punjab and another.
Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul
Case No.: CRM-M No. 12683 of 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Sonia Mathur, Amit Tiwari, Harish Chabra, Abhishek Sanghi, Jitender Khurana
Advocate for the Respondent: Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, Navraj Singh
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
