PRIYA PRAKASH VARRIER AND OTHERS versus STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2018] 10 S.C.R. 615 · Decided: 31-08-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
615
PRIYA PRAKASH VARRIER AND OTHERS
v.
STATE OF TELANGANA  AND ANOTHER
(Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 44 of 2018)
AUGUST 31, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI,  A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s. 295A – When attracted – On facts,
allegation against petitioner that by picturization of the song
‘manikya malaraya poovi’, in the movie, they offended sentiments
of muslim community – FIR against petitioners for offence u/s. 295A
– Petitioners-actor, producer and director of the movie, seeking
quashing of FIR – Petitioners case that the said song was sung in
various parts of the State of Kerala since 1978, the said song, is a
mappila song which is a version of a traditional Muslim song from
the Malabar region of Kerala; and that the song is being sung in
the movie which is yet to be released and is available in Youtube
and other mediums as a promotional venture – Held: Section 295A
not attracted in the instant case – Picturization of the said song
solely because of the ‘wink’ would not tantamount to an insult or
attempt to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of a class of
citizens – Said song has been on Youtube since February, 2018 –
It cannot be perceived that any calculated tendency is adopted by
the petitioners to insult or to disturb public order to invite the wrath
of s. 295A – Furthermore, intervenor, who was informant in FIR, in
all possibility has been an enthusiast to gain a mileage from the
FIR, though the same was really not warranted – In view thereof,
FIR is quashed – Also, no FIR u/s 154 or any complaint u/s. 200
CrPC to be entertained against the petitioners – Constitution of
India – Art. 32.
Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P. AIR 1987 SC 620
– relied on.
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Sanjay Leela Bhansali and Ors.
(2018) 1 SCC 770 ; Mahendra Singh Dhoni v.
Yerraguntla Shyamsundar and Another (2017) 7 SCC
760 : [2017] 3 SCR 763 – referred to.
  [2018] 10 S.C.R. 615
615
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
616
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
(2018) 1 SCC 770
  referred to
Para 10
[2017] 3 SCR 763
  referred to
Para 11
AIR 1987 SC 620
  relied on
Para 13
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition
(Criminal) No. 44 of 2018
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of  India.
Haris Beeran, Mushtaq Salim, Usman Ghani Khan, Dev Prakash,
Ms. Pallavi Pratap, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Mrityunjai Singh, Pradeep
Kumar Kaushik,  Dr. Sunil Kumar, R.P. Goyal, Advs. for the appearing
parties.
The Order of the Court was passed by
DIPAK MISRA, CJI.  1. In the instant writ petition preferred
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, namely, the
actor, producer and director of the movie, have prayed for quashing of
F.I.R. No.34 of 2018, dated 14.02.2018, registered at Falaknama Police
Station, Hyderabad, Telengana.  That apart, a prayer has also been made
that no F.I.R. should be entertained or no complaint under Section 200
of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be dealt with because of the
picturization of the song “Manikya Malaraya Poovi” by the petitioner
No.1 in the film, namely, “Oru Adaar Love”.
2.  The grievance of the petitioners is that the said song has been
sung in various parts of the State of Kerala since 1978. It is urged by the
learned counsel for the petitioners that the song has been picturized by
petitioner No.1 as a part of the movie and the said song, as averred in
the writ petition, is a mappila song which is a version of a traditional
Muslim song from the Malabar region of Kerala.  It is contended that
the petitioners cannot be made liable for the song being sung in the
movie which is yet to be released. It is not disputed that the song has
been available in Youtube and other mediums as a promotional venture.
3.  The F.I.R. in the matter has been lodged by the intervenor,
namely, M.A. Muqeeth Khan, son of Jawad Khan.  The allegation in the
F.I.R. is that the song offends the sentiments of a particular community.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
617
The F.I.R. has been lodged for an offence under Section 295A of the
Indian Penal Code.
4. The pivotal issue that emerges for consideration is whether
Section 295A of the I.P.C. would get attracted to the obtaining fact
situation.
5. We have heard Mr. Haris Beeran, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, learned counsel for the State of
Telangana and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Kaushik, learned counsel for the
intervenor.
6. Section 295A of the I.P.C. reads thus:-
“295-A. Deliberate and malicious acts, in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.