Himachal Pradesh High Court refuses to cancel FIR over books ‘insulting’ Hindu gods

It was alleged that the accused, along with some other persons, was selling books containing derogatory allegations against Hinduism, including Hindu Dharam Mahaan, Geeta Tera Gyan Amrit, Kabir Parmeshwar, Jeene Ki Raah, Gyan Ganga, etc. It came on record that a man bought the books and found that the book called Hindu Dharam Mahan contained insulting references against Hindu gods and saints. He then filed an FIR at Nalagarh Police Station.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla refused to set aside the FIR as it disclosed an actionable offence.

The police registered the FIR under IPC Section 295 (acts intended to outrage religious feelings) and seized the books. It was found that one Sant Rampal had written some of the books. The police recorded the statements of the witnesses and filed a chargesheet after completing the investigation. Aggrieved by the FIR registration and the proceedings, the accused sellers moved the high court.

‘Taken out of context’

Advocates Arjun Sheoran and Heena Chauhan, appearing for the accused, argued that sanction was required from the Centre or state government to prosecute an offence under IPC Section 295A, but it was not taken. They claimed the man had picked up “stray” sentences from the books out of context, while noting that the books were widely available and their distribution was not an offence.

Additional Advocate General Lokender Kutlehria, appearing for the state, submitted that the FIR and the chargesheet specifically mentioned that the books were being distributed to hurt the sentiments of Hindus and that they defamed Hindu gods, indicating an actionable offence. The counsel, however, admitted that the sanction has not been obtained and added that a letter had been written to the district magistrate for the same.

‘Freedom of speech not absolute’

The high court pointed out that legally, a sanction must be obtained from the district magistrate, the Centre or the state government to prosecute offences against the state, like sedition or acts that intend to outrage religious feelings. It noted that the right to freedom of speech and expression is not absolute and is subject to public order, and hence the accused cannot claim its protection.

The court held that since no sanction was obtained to prosecute, the trial court had no jurisdiction to take cognisance of the offence. It cancelled the proceedings pending in the trial court against the accused –  while the FIR remained –  and underlined that the order would not prevent the state from starting fresh proceedings after getting the sanction.