- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Acharya Rajneesh Of Bombay v. Naval Thakur And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner, Acharya Rajneesh of Bombay, challenged the issuance of a notice dated 4-2-1986 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, under Sections 295-A and 298 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The complaint was filed by Naval Thakur, a resident of village Badah in Tehsil Kullu, alleging that the petitioner was associated with certain Yogic institutions and had published materials and given teachings offensive to religious sentiments. Specifically, the complainant alleged that the petitioner’s book "From Sex to Super Consciousness" and a poster distributed advocated free sex and a carefree life, which were claimed to insult Hindu scriptures and injure religious feelings. The complainant also alleged that the petitioner’s actions would defile the spiritual heritage of Himachal Pradesh and tarnish the image of spirituality. Based on this complaint and attached documents, the Magistrate issued notice to the petitioner for offences under Sections 295-A and 298 IPC.
The petitioner admitted being in Himachal Pradesh for health reasons but denied giving any speech, publishing, or circulating the book or poster in question. He asserted his spiritual work and teachings were not prejudicial and that his lectures and books had never been banned. He also denied responsibility for the poster and the publication of the book, contending that the Magistrate issued notice without judicial application of mind.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the complaint under Sections 295-A and 298 IPC is maintainable without prior sanction of the Government as required by Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
- Whether the allegations made constitute offences under Sections 295-A and 298 IPC.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings on grounds of illegality or abuse of process.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The continuance of the complaint is an abuse of the court process and is not maintainable on facts or law.
- The petitioner denies having published or circulated the offending book or poster and denies giving any relevant speech in the area.
- The book and poster do not cause prejudice as alleged, evidenced by the book’s availability in public libraries without prohibition.
- The Magistrate failed to apply judicial mind before issuing notice.
- Prior sanction from the Government is mandatory under Section 196 CrPC before initiating proceedings under Sections 295-A and 298 IPC, which was not obtained.
Complainant’s Arguments
- This information was not available in the provided opinion.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State of Mysore v. Henry Rodrigues, 1962 (2) Cri LJ 564 | Interpretation of Section 295-A IPC requiring deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings. | Affirmed that simple expression of opinion does not constitute offence under Section 295-A; intention must be deliberate and malicious. |
| Shalibhadra Shah v. Swami Krishna Bharati, 1981 Cri LJ 113 (Gujarat High Court) | Mandatory prior sanction under Section 196 CrPC for prosecution under Section 295-A IPC. | Held that absence of prior sanction renders complaint not maintainable and court without jurisdiction; adopted by this Court. |
| R.P Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 (1960 Cri LJ 1239) | Guidelines for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC where allegations do not constitute offence or there is legal bar. | Applied to hold that prosecution without sanction and no offence is a ground for quashing. |
| State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, AIR 1977 SC 1489 (1977 Cri LJ 1125) | High Court’s power under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings that are abuse of process or against ends of justice. | Supported the exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash the complaint in this case. |
| Sharda Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar, AIR 1977 SC 1754 (1977 Cri LJ 1146) | High Court can quash proceedings if allegations do not constitute an offence under Section 482 CrPC. | Reinforced that complaint not constituting offence is liable to be quashed, applied in this case. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court first examined the relevant statutory provisions: Sections 295-A and 298 IPC which criminalize deliberate and malicious acts or words intended to outrage or wound religious feelings, and Section 196 CrPC which mandates prior government sanction before cognizance of such offences.
The Court emphasized that Section 295-A requires a deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings, not mere expression of opinion or speech. It referenced State of Mysore v. Henry Rodrigues to highlight this threshold.
Crucially, the Court noted that Section 196 CrPC is a procedural bar requiring prior sanction from the Government before proceedings under Sections 295-A and 298 IPC can be entertained. The absence of such sanction was held to deprive the Magistrate of jurisdiction, following the reasoning in Shalibhadra Shah v. Swami Krishna Bharati.
Regarding Section 298 IPC, the Court observed that the complainant failed to establish that any offensive words or gestures were made directly in his presence, thus not fulfilling the statutory requirements.
The Court then considered its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in R.P Kapur and subsequent cases. It found that the complaint is legally unsustainable, constitutes no offence, and continuing it would amount to an abuse of process.
The Court rejected the contention that the case should proceed despite these defects, finding merit in the petition to quash the proceedings.
Holding and Implications
The petition is allowed and the proceedings pending in the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, in private complaint No. 2-1/86, instituted on 2-1-1986, are quashed.
This decision directly terminates the prosecution against the petitioner on the grounds of lack of prior sanction and absence of offence. The Court did not set any new precedent beyond applying established principles regarding prior sanction and the scope of Sections 295-A and 298 IPC. The ruling underscores the necessity of government sanction for such prosecutions and the High Court’s power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process.
1. By this petition under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Acharya Rajneesh of Bombay, challenges the issuance of notice dated 4-2-1986 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, under Ss. 295-A and 298 of the Penal Code in a complaint moved by complainant Naval Thakur under Ss. 292, 293, 295-A of the Penal Code. The essential facts, giving rise to this petition, are that the complainant, a resident of village Badah in Tehsil Kullu, moved a complaint against the petitioner alleging that he has been closely associated with certain Yogic Asthanas and Yoga Ashram under the guidance of Acharya Prakash Dev. Further, he stated that he has been associated with the Mahabudhi Society of India, New Delhi, and has been engaged in meditating and practically practising the Yogic Ashnas preached by the saints and seers of India. He was greatly influenced by the teachings of Swami Vivekananda and others to the world.
2. The further allegation is that the complainant visited Span Motel on 11-12-1985 at the residence of the petitioner on his birthday and the complainant, after having been shown by the police, sat there to watch him. The complainant sought an interview with the petitioner through his Private Secretary to find out the truth of the teachings of the petitioner but he was not given any appointment, although the Secretary of the petitioner had promised him to do so. It is also stated that a poster was distributed which advocated free sex and carefree life and enjoyment in the present world. Besides, the petitioner has published a book entitled “From Sex to Super Consciousness” in which he has strenuously stressed for sex to Samadhi and from Lust to Lord and from Kama to Rama. The petitioner, according to the complainant, has made slanderous attacks on the saints and seers of India. This book, he says, goes against the teachings and preachings of the Hindu scriptures, thus injuring the feelings of the complainant seriously. This book, he further says, is an obscene book and is available in the Government District Library at Kullu, which should have been banned and forfeited to the State Government since it not only injures the feelings of the people of Himachal Pradesh but also of the humanity at large. The complainant further alleges that the whole of Himachal Pradesh has been the abode of Rishis and Munnis and gods and goddesses but the petitioner, surrounded by moneyed people, will not only defile the poor Himachalis and lead them astray but also affect their plain and pure vision about the blessings of Lord Ramakrishna Paramhansa, who kindled the flames of spirituality throughout the world and by these teachings, the accused-petitioner will tarnish the whole image of spirituality and bring ruination to peace, serenity and calmness of the people in the area for all times to come. The complainant has placed, during his preliminary examination, pamphlet (Ex. P.1) and book “From Sex to Super Consciousness” and a copy of the Weekly with interview of the petitioner, Dharamayuga (Ex. P.2), which hit his religious sentiments. On the basis of the complaint and these documents, the trying Judge has issued notice to the petitioner on 4-2-1986 for offences under Ss. 295-A and 298 of the Penal Code.
3. The petitioner has admitted his presence in Himachal Pradesh at Manali for 3 to 4 weeks for health reasons but has denied having given any speech or published or circulated any book or pamphlet at Kullu or Manali during this time. He asserts that during his life, he has his own views and beliefs. After passing through various phases in life, he is devoted to spiritual work, touring extensively, organising meditation camps, giving lectures, writing books of spiritual matters, meeting his followers-mostly intellectuals. His devotees have been picking up what they understood from his speeches and lectured, and tape recording the same and preparing audio cassettes freely and openly. None of his lectures and books have ever been branned by the Government since they convey the views, sentiments and beliefs of the petitioner and causing prejudice to none.
4. The petitioner also alleges that the poster, offending to the petitioner, has not been written by him; rather it is done by someone else. The petitioner has, therefore, no concern with its creation, publication and distribution, as alleged, and the book “From Sex to Super Consciousness” has also not been published by the petitioner. However, a reference to the same does not in any way cause prejudice to anyone and the assertion of the complainant about this book., as alleged, is thoroughly inapt, inaccurate and far from the meaningful and factual accuracy of real life. The very fact that the book is available in Libraries and everywhere, shows that it does not have the consequences the complainant contemplates. Otherwise, the same could have been proscribed. All other allegations have been categorically repudiated being incoherent, vague and lacking in particulars. It has also been stated that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the matter and issued notice to the petitioner without applying his mind judicially to the facts and circumstances before him.
5. Shri K.L Arora, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has confined his submissions to the maintainability and continuance of the complaint before the court concerned. It is submitted that continuance of the complaint is an abuse of the process of the court since it is not at all maintainable on facts as well as on law. Before I deal with these submissions of Shri K.L Arora, it is appropriate to refer Ss. 295-A and 298 of the Indian Penal Code and S. 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
“295-A. Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
xxxxxxxxx
“298. Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings.— Whoever, with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person or makes any gesture in the sight of that person or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.”
“196. Prosecution for offences against the State and for criminal conspiracy to commit such offence.—
(1) No court shall take cognizance of—
(a) Any offence punishable under Chap.VI or under S. 153-A, S. 295-A or sub-section (1) of S. 505 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
(b) a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, or
(c) any such abetment, as is described in S. 108-A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government.
(1-A) No Court shall take cognizance of—
(a) any offence punishable under S. 153-B or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of S. 505 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), or
(b) a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence,
Except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government or of the District Magistrate.
(2) No Court shall take cognizance of the offence of any criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, unless the State Government or the District Magistrate has consented in writing to the initiation of the proceedings:
Provided that where the criminal conspiracy is one to which the provisions of Section 195 apply, no such consent shall be necessary.
(3) The Central Government or the State Government may, before according sanction under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1-A) and the District Magistrate may before according sanction under sub-section (1-A) and the State Government or the District Magistrate may, before giving consent under sub-section (2), order a preliminary investigation by a police officer not being below the rank of Inspector, in which case such police officer shall have the powers referred to in subsection (3) of Section 155.”
6. Section 295-A of the Penal Code has been intended to respect the religious susceptibilities of persons of different religious persuations or creeds. Courts have got to be very cautious in such matters and to pay due regard to the feelings and religious emotions of different classes of persons with different beliefs, irrespective of the consideration whether or not they share those beliefs, or whether they are rational or otherwise in the opinion of the Court (see 1962 (2) Cri LJ 564, State of Mysore v. Henry Rodrigues). The important ingredient of this provision brought into existence by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1927 is that the intention of the accused in outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, should be deliberate and malicious. Simple and innocent expression of opinion, may be an outbrust while making a speech, will not bring the act within the parameters of this provision. The Court has to examine and understand the matter from all the facts and circumstances brought before it.
7. This offence is of serious nature. Therefore, rightly, S. 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires prior sanction of the Government to institute such like proceedings. In view of this provision (S. 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), it can very safely be said that prior sanction by the Government is a sine quanon for initiating proceedings under S. 295-A of the Penal Code and failure to do so means that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain and continue with such proceedings Such a situation arose before the High Court of Gujarat in 1981 Cri LJ 113 (Shalibhadra Shah v. Swami Krishna Bharati) wherein A.M Ahmadi, J. (as he then was) dealt with the matter quite comprehensively and exhaustively and came to the conclusion that prior sanction for initiating a complaint under S. 295-A of the Penal Code is a mandatory requirement. I, respectfully, accept the reasons of the learned Judge in this case and seek assistance to arrive at the same conclusion in this matter and hold that in the absence of sanction, the complaint is not maintainable and the court has no jurisdiction to entertain and proceed with the same.
8. Adverting to S. 298 of the Penal Code, the requirement is that the accused utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person or makes any gesture in the sight of that person or places any object in the sight of that person intentionally and deliberately to wound the religious feelings of that person. This Section does not speak anything about the writings in the form of Annexures P-1 and P-2 and the alleged interview to the Weekly Dharamayuga. The complainant has neither set up this case in accordance with law nor led any evidence at the preliminary stage. There is no evidence that these writings were written in the presence of the complainant or were uttered in his presence. Here also the principles laid down in the Gujarat case (1981 Cri LJ 113) (supra) apply with full force. The result is that no case under either of these provisions is made out against the petitioner.
9. Now, the question is whether this Court has jurisdiction in such like cases to exercise inherent powers under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quash the proceedings. The answer is in the affirmative, in case the matter comes within the parameters laid down by the apex Court in this regard. The basic case that appears to be relevant is AIR 1960 SC 866 : (1960 Cri LJ 1239) (R.P Kapur v. State Of Punjab.) wherein the apex Court, without being exhaustive to the principles which may come in aid of the court for examining cases for quashing such proceedings, laid down guidelines and two such are: where the allegations do not constitute the offence alleged and where there is legal bar against the institution of the Criminal proceedings in respect of the offence alleged; there may not be the requisite sanction.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, these principles apply in the present case and it can be termed, without any iota of doubt, that the present prosecution of the petitioner is not only illegal for want of sanction but also constitutes no offence worth prosecution. It can be said that it is a lame prosecution and the continuance of the same amounts to gross abuse of the process of the court and there is little doubt that this Court can quash such like prosecution under S. 482 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure.
11. In (1977) 2 SCC 699 : AIR 1977 SC 1489 : (1977 Cri LJ 1125) (State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy), while dealing with S. 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, corresponding to Section 482 of the New Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court observed as under:
“……… In the exercise of this wholesomepower, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed………”
12. Further, in (1977) 1 SCC 505 : AIR 1977 SC 1754 : (1977 Cri LJ 1146) (Dr. Sharda Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar), P.N Bhagwati, J. (as he then was), speaking for the Court, said in para 2 thereof as under:
“2. It is now settled law that where the allegations set out in the complaint or the chargesheet do not constitute any offence, it is competent to the High Court exercising its inherent jurisdiction under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence….”
13. In view of the aforesaid conclusions, the submission made by Shri Dharamveer Sharma that this Court may not interfere in the matter at this stage and allow the case to proceed against the petitioner even if he happens to be a person with a large following, is untenable. No other point was argued by the learned Counsel for the complainant. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that there is merit in this petition and the interest of justice requires that the proceedings pending in the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, in private complaint No. 2-1/86, instituted on 2-1-1986, are quashed which I accordingly do by allowing this petition.
14. Petition allowed.
Alert