The Gujarat High Court quashed an FIR alleging offence under Section 295A IPC after finding that the alleged sale of sarees bearing images of Lord Gautam Buddha lacked the deliberate and malicious intention required to outrage religious feelings. The court emphasized that commercial activity involving religious motifs, absent inflammatory rhetoric or proof of mala fide, does not fall within the penal scope of the provision.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Bharatbhai Hirjibhai Shankar, a reputed businessman of Surat trading in sarees and dress materials under the name Shivam Textiles, was accused of hurting religious sentiments by selling textiles bearing printed images of Lord Gautam Buddha. The de facto complainant, serving as President of the Samast Yuva Ambedkar Samaj, alleged that such prints were intended to degrade the deity and wound the religious feelings of the community.
Key Facts
- The applicant procures goods from manufacturers as per latest market trends and designs and sells them according to requirement.
- No objectionable prints or material was being sold by the applicant, and the prints were not of the God as alleged by the complainant.
- The applicant had no intention to hurt the religious feelings of any class of people and there was no deliberate attempt to outrage religious feelings.
- The de facto complainant is also engaged in the same business, leading to an inference of business rivalry as a motive behind the FIR.
- Photographs annexed with the application were examined by the court.
- A report of the Police Inspector, Salabatpura Police Station, Surat dated 07.08.2024 was placed on record.
Procedural History
- 19.12.2017: Alleged incident of sale of sarees bearing images of Lord Gautam Buddha.
- 21.12.2017: FIR No. II-1169/2017 registered at Salabatpura Police Station, Surat under Sections 295A and 114 IPC.
- 2018: Criminal Misc. Application (for quashing & set aside FIR/order) No. 854 of 2018 filed before the High Court of Gujarat.
- 07.08.2024: Report of Police Inspector Salabatpura Police Station, Surat placed on record.
- 07/10/2026: Judgment delivered.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought quashing and setting aside of the FIR and all consequential criminal proceedings emanating therefrom.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at face value, disclose the essential ingredients of Section 295A IPC, namely a deliberate and malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of a class of citizens.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
The applicant contended that no prima facie case was made out as he was not involved, directly or indirectly, in the alleged crime and the ingredients of Section 295A IPC were not satisfied. It was submitted that the incident occurred on 19.12.2017 while the FIR was lodged on 21.12.2017, raising doubts about the credibility of the complaint. The applicant further argued that the FIR was a case of suppression of true facts motivated by business rivalry and that there was no deliberate or malicious intention to outrage religious feelings.
For the Respondent
The learned advocate for the de facto complainant and the Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the photographs annexed with the application clearly showed the allegations to be correct and a strong prima facie case was made out. They urged that inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised sparingly and that the matter should proceed to trial to allow the truth to be ascertained.
The Court's Analysis
The court reiterated the settled legal position governing the scope of inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC as laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [AIR 1992 SC 604], which illustrates seven categories where judicial intervention is warranted. It further referred to Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar (2017) 7 SCC 760 and the Constitution Bench decision in Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P. AIR 1957 SC 620, which held that Section 295A IPC punishes only the aggravated form of insult to religion when perpetrated with deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings.
Applying these principles, the court observed:
"The uncontroverted facts set out in the FIR, even when taken at face value, fail to establish a prima facie case of an aggravated insult to religion against the present applicant."
The court found that the applicant’s commercial activity - printing and selling sarees with images of a deity on the lower portion of the garment - was devoid of any overt act, inflammatory rhetoric, or demonstrable intent to denigrate a religious belief. Mere depiction of religious motifs, even if appearing near the border or pallu area, could not be presumed to be driven by deliberate malice or calculated to disrupt public order. Consequently, the allegations did not disclose a cognizable offence and the proceeding would constitute an abuse of the process of law.
The Verdict
The application was allowed; the FIR No. II-1169/2017 registered at Salabatpura Police Station, Surat and all consequential criminal proceedings emanating therefrom were quashed and set aside qua the applicant. The rule was made absolute and direct service was permitted.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Deliberate and Malicious Intent Is Essential
- Section 295A IPC requires proof of deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings.
- Mere insult or depiction of religious symbols without such intention does not attract liability.
Commercial Use of Religious Motifs Is Not Per Se Criminal
- Trade in articles bearing religious imagery, undertaken as part of ordinary business, does not cross the threshold into criminal insult.
- Absence of inflammatory rhetoric or proof of mala fide defeats prosecution.
Business Rivalry Cannot Ground an FIR
- Where the complainant is engaged in the same trade, courts must scrutinize motives behind the complaint.
- FIRs filed to exert competitive pressure are liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Inherent Powers Exercised Sparingly
- Courts must apply the Bhajan Lal test before interfering with criminal proceedings.
- If the allegations, even taken at face value, fail to disclose a cognizable offence, the FIR should be quashed.
