MAHENDRA SINGH DHONI versus YERRAGUNTLA SHYAMSUNDAR AND ANR.

Citation: [2017] 3 S.C.R. 763 · Decided: 20-04-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 3 S.C.R. 763 
MAHENDRA SINGH DHONI 
v. 
YERRAGUNTLA SHYAMSUNDAR AND ANR. 
(Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 23 of2016) 
APRIL 20, 2017 
[DIPAK MISRA, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND 
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 295A, 34 - Complaint - Quashing 
of - Complainant was disappointed with the main page of monthly 
business 111agazine which carried a painting paimed with photo of 
the petitioner with a caption "God of Big Deals" - He filed complaint 
petition constituting offence u/s.295A IPC before Magistrate at 
Andhra Pradesh -;- Transfer petition filed by Petitioner before 
Supreme Court to transfer complaint case to Karnataka - Meanwhile 
A 
B 
c 
the pendency of Transfer petition, petitioner sought quashment of D 
the complaint case itself- Held: s.295A does not stipulate everything 
to be penalised - It penalises only those acts of insults to or those 
varieties of atte111pts to insult the religion or religious belief of a 
class of citizens which are perpetrated with deliberate and malicious 
intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class of 
citizens - Insults to religion .offered umvittingly or carelessly or 
without any deliberate or malicious intention does not come within 
the sec(ion -;- In the instant case, allegations re111otely do noi satisfy 
the essential-ingredients of the offence and therefore, complaint 
proceeding initiated against the petitioner quashed - Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.200. 
Penal Code, 1860- ss. 295A, 34 :__ Co111plaint petition quashed 
E 
F 
by Supreme Court - Same benefit to flow in favour of the co-
accused - Held: In the instant case, as the comp(aint is quashed, it 
shall squarely apply to the co-accused, who is the editor of the 
magazine - Therefore, complaint is quashed even against co-
G 
accused. 
· 
Judicial Discipline - Responsibility - Held: Magistrates 
conferred with the power of taking cognizance and issuing su111111ons 
are required to carejitlly scrutinize whether the allegations made in 
763 
H 
764 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
the complaint proceeding meet the basic ingredients of the offence; 
whether the concept' of territorial jurisdiction is satisfied; and 
further whether the accused is really required to be summoned -
This to be treated as the primary judicial responsibility of the court 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
issuii1g process. 
Disposing of the petition, the Court ___ . 
HELD: 1.1 It is clear as crystal that Section 295A IPC does 
not stipulate everything to be penalised and any and every act 
would tantamount to insult or attempt to insult the religion or the 
religious beliefs of class of citizens. It penalises only those acts 
of insults to or those varieties of attempts to insult the religion 
or religious belief of a class of citizens which are perpetrated 
with the deliber~te and malicious intention of outraging the 
religious feelings of that class of citizens. Insults to religion offered 
unwittingly or carelessly or without any deliberate or malicious 
intention to outrage the religious feelings of that class do not 
come within the Section. The said provision only punishes the 
aggravated form of insult to religion when it is perpetrated with 
the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious 
feelings of that class. Emphasis has been laid on the calculated 
tendency of the said aggravated form of insuit and also to disrupt 
the public order to invite the penalty. [Para 7][769-C-E] 
Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P. AIR (1957) SC 620 : 
(1957) SCR 860 - relied on 
1.2 In the instant case, after considering and scrutinizing 
the allegations made in the complaint petition, it is clear that the 
allegations remotely do not satisfy the essential ingredients of 
the offence and, therefore, applying the principle stated in State 
of Haryana & Ors. v. Bliajan Lal & others, the complaint 
proceedings initiated against the petitioner is hereby quashed. 
[Para 10][770-A-B) 
State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors.(1992) 
Supp 1 SCC 335 : (1990) 3 Suppl. SCR 259 - relied 
on. 
2. In the case at hand, as the complaint is quashed, needless 
to say, for the reasons for which th,e complaint is quashed, it shall 
MAHENDRA SINGH DHONI v. YERRAGUNTLA 
SHYAMSUNDAR AND ANR. 
squarely ap1>ly to the co-accused, who is the Editor of the 
magazine. Therefore, applying the principle laid down in Harbhajan 
Singh v. State of U.P. and Akhil ali Jehangir Ali Sayyed v. State of 
Maharashtra, quash the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.