Sanjay Leela Bhansali And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2015 Latest Caselaw 2798 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Reserved
 
A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 40
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8747 of 2014
 

 
Petitioner :- Sanjay Leela Bhansali And 5 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dileep Kumar,Rajrshi Gupta
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Bhaskar Bhadra
 

 
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.

Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.

(Delivered By Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.)

The petitioners, who are the Director, Producer, Co-producer, actor and actresses of the film titled "Goliyon Ki Rasleela Ram-Leela", are aggrieved with the order dated 14.11.2013, passed by Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Bareilly whereby the learned Magistrate has allowed the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by respondent no. 3 and has directed the police to register and investigate criminal case against all the petitioners under Sections 295-A, 298, 500 I.P.C.. The petitioners have prayed to issue a writ, order or direction for quashing the aforesaid impugned order and also the F.I.R. dated 06.12.2013 registered against them at Police Station Bhamaura, District Bareilly under the aforesaid sections in pursuance of the impugned order passed by the Magistrate. A further prayer has been made by the petitioners for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the police not to harass them or not to take any coercive measure against them in pursuance of the said First Information Report.

Heard Sri Dileep Kumar and Sri Rajarshi Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent nos. 1 & 2. Perused the record.

No one has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 3 even after repeated calls, though the name of Sri Bhaskar Bhadra is shown in the cause list as his counsel.

A film named "Goliyon Ki Rasleela Ram-Leela" was produced by petitioner nos. 4 and 5 starring petitioner no. 2, 3 and 6 and directed by petitioner no. 1. As the title of the film was related to Lord Ram, several cases and Public Interest Litigations were filed against its Producer, Director and actors claiming that the film might offend the religious sentiments of the Hindu Community. The exhibition of the said film was also challenged by means of various PILs and writ petitions on the ground of said film being full of obscenity and vulgarness.

The respondent no. 3 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Bareilly against the petitioners with prayer to direct the police to register a criminal case against the petitioners under Sections 295-A, 298 and 500 I.P.C. which was allowed by the Magistrate vide impugned order dated 14.11.2013.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the legality of the aforesaid order and the registration of F.I.R. in pursuance thereof on the grounds that the said film is a work of fiction; it is neither related to "Ramleela" (traditional folk performance associated with the life of Lord Ram) nor related to "Rasleela" associated with Lord Krishna. Learned counsel has submitted that the said film is not related to any of the Hindu religious beliefs, sentiments or sensibilities, in fact the said film is a story of two main characters "Ram" and "Leela" and is based on the famous play "Romeo & Juliet" written by William Shakespeare. It has further been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the said film does not in any manner promote hatred or enmity between groups or communities nor does it intend to insult any religion or outrage religious feelings / sentiments of any class of citizens of India or any religious group; the film is neither obscene nor offensive in any other manner. Advancing his argument further, learned counsel has submitted that the said film was censored by Film Censor Board in accordance with Section 5-B of the Cinematograph Act of 1952 read with Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 and vide Section 5-A of the Cinematograph Act of 1952, was granted "U/A" certificate. The film was released worldwide on 15.11.2013 and was well received by critics as well as by the audience. The said film has been viewed by more than 20 crores people. It was telecast on various television channels, but exhibition of the said film has not in any manner affected or hurt the religious sentiments of Hindus.

On the aforesaid grounds learned counsel has prayed that the impugned complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as well as the impugned F.I.R. lodged in pursuance of the order passed on such complaint, which are nothing but abuse of the process of law and are contrary to various judgments and orders passed by different High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court on the same issue, be quashed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to Annexure No. 6 of this writ petition to show that in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10845 of 2013 Lucknow Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.11.2013 had directed the petitioners to display the said film without using the words "Ram-Leela" and "Raasleela" in the title of the said film. The aforesaid order dated 21.11.2013 was challenged by the petitioners by filing SLP(C) No. 4894 of 2014 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 07.03.2014 stayed the order dated 21.11.2013 passed by Lucknow Bench of this Court. Learned counsel has argued that on a careful perusal of the first information report lodged against the petitioners, it cannot be said that any act has been done by the petitioners with deliberate or malicious intent to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs, hence no offence under Sections 295-A, 298 & 500 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners on the grounds mentioned above is that the contents of the impugned F.I.R., even if they are taken at their face value, do no prima facie constitute any offence against the petitioners.

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on several judicial pronouncements and has drawn our attention to the orders dated 13.11.2013, 14.11.2013 and 25.09.2013 of this Court passed in various Public Interest Litigations whereby this Court has dismissed all the PILs filed for imposing a ban on release/screening of the film "Goliyon Ki Rasleela Ram-Leela". Learned counsel for the petitioners has also drawn our attention to the judgment and order dated 09.10.2013, passed by a Division Bench of Delhi High Court dismissing the Writ Petition (C) No. 6384 of 2013 filed by Rashtravadi Shiv Sena against Sanjay Leela Bhansali Films Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. challenging the exhibition of the said film ("Goliyon Ki Rasleela Ram-Leela") on the same ground i.e. the film attempts to hurt the religious sentiments of Hindus at large. Delhi High Court, in this judgment, while relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajkapoor v. Laxman AIR 1980 SC 605 has held that in view of the bar as provided by Section 5-A and also the provisions of 5-B of Cinematograph Act, criminal prosecution is not maintainable.

Now, returning to the facts of present case, the record shows that the petitioners have produced the certificate dated 01.11.2013 given to the film by Central Board Film Certification, which is Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition, which clearly reveals that the film has been released after due certification by Censor Board granting U/A certificate to this film. The proviso to Section 5-A of Cinematograph Act provides as follows:-

"the applicant for the certificate, any distributor or exhibitor or any other person to whom the rights in the film have passed shall not be liable for punishment under any law relating to obscenity in respect of any matter contained in the film for which certificate has been granted under clause (a) or clause (b).]"

Section 5B of Cinematograph Act is also relevant, which reads as follows:-

"5-B. Principles for guidance in certifying films. - (1) A film shall not be certified for public exhibition if, in the opinion of the authority competent to grant the certificate, the film or any part of it is against the interests of [(Ins. by Act 49 of 1981 (w.e.f. 1-6-1983) the sovereignty and integrity of India] the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or involves defamation or contempt of court or is likely to incite the commission of any offence.

(2) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (1) the Central Government may issue such directions as it may think fit setting out the principles which shall guide the authority competent to grant certificates under this Act in sanctioning films for public exhibition."

The above provision casts a duty upon the Board to certify films after taking into consideration all the components mentioned in the provisions and scheme has been provided under the Cinematograph Act itself, for appeal, suspension and revocation of certificate and revision powers also vests with the Central Government. Admittedly, the film has been duly certified by the Censor Board with U/A certification. If the Board blunders, the Act provides remedies but respondent has not challenged the certification of film and has not availed any statutory remedy provided under Cinematograph Act.

In view of the bar created by Section 5-A of Cinematograph Act, the criminal prosecution of the petitioners is not maintainable. Learned magistrate, while passing the order on the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has not considered the provisions of Cinematograph Act and has passed the order in a mechanical way.

Freedom of speech and expression is a valuable fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The film being a piece of art, is entitled to protection of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution specially when it has been duly certified by the Film Censor Board.

In Public Interest Litigation No. 62068 of 2013, Dheeraj Saran Rastogi Vs. Union of India and 6 Ors. where a ban on the release of the same film (Ram-Leela) was sought, this Court observed as under:-

"The film has been duly certified by the Censor Board with U/A certification. The certification in question has not been challenged. Any such relief which has been sought, if granted, would impinge upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India. The restriction on that right must be strictly in accordance with what is contemplated in Article 19 (2).

In that view of the matter, no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed."

In view of the legal bar contained in Section 5A and 5B of Cinematograph Act and in wake of various judicial pronouncements cited above, we are of the firm view that the criminal proceedings in the present case against the petitioners should not have been initiated by the magistrate. Hence, the order passed on application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by him and the F.I.R. No. 234 of 2013 registered at Police Station Bhamaura, District Bareilly in pursuance thereof, are liable to be quashed.

Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. The impugned F.I.R. and all the proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed.

No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 30.9.2015

NS