The Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR filed in 2010 against actor Shekhar Suman and comedian Bharti Singh over alleged comments made during a television comedy show, ruling that no offense of hurting religious sentiments has been established.
Bombay High Court quashes 2010 FIR against Shekhar Suman and Bharti Singh over comments on comedy show
The case was registered at Pydhonie police station under section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with intentional acts intended to outrage religious feelings, as well as section 34, which deals with common intention. A representative of Raza Academy had filed a complaint after an episode of the comedy Circus Ka Jadoo aired in November 2010.
Justice Amit Borkar allowed separate petitions filed by Shekhar Suman and Bharti Singh, seeking quashing of the FIR and all related proceedings. While pronouncing the order, the court said that the television program was meant for light entertainment and should be viewed in its proper context.
The High Court said that a comedy show cannot be compared to a serious speech, religious sermon or political statement. It states that performance in such formats should be considered holistically rather than isolating certain words or expressions.
The court further clarified that to constitute an offense under Section 295-A, there must be a deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings. According to the bench, both the conditions are necessary, and if even one is missing, the offense is not complete.
After reviewing the available material, the court found no evidence to suggest that Shekhar Suman or Bharti Singh had any intention to insult any religion. It also said that merely because some viewers may have been offended would not be enough to justify criminal prosecution.
The bench also considered the specific roles of both the actors. It added that Shekhar Suman was serving as a judge on the show, while Bharti Singh was performing as part of a scripted comic act. There was no material to indicate any common plan or common intention between them.
Additionally, the High Court pointed out that the prosecution had failed to obtain prior sanction under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is a mandatory requirement for prosecuting offenses under Section 295-A.
Rejecting the state’s argument that the case should proceed to trial, the court said that a trial cannot replace the need for a legally valid case. It was concluded that continuing the criminal proceedings in the absence of necessary material would amount to an abuse of the legal process.
With this judgment, the FIR and all consequential proceedings against Shekhar Suman and Bharti Singh have been quashed.
