Valmiki

In brief, facts relevant for the disposal of this petition as emerge from the complaint, are that Shri Arvind Bhatt, accused No. 2 is the Director of Film Sant Valmiki, whereas Suresh Oberoi, accused No. 1, has performed the main role of Sant Valmiki in the said film. Suresh Oberoi accused gave an interview to Film City Magazine wherein he stated, that Valmiki is known in the world for writing Ramayana, but, before Ramayana was written by him he was a Daku He committed, robberies with the passers by and when he came to know about the crimes he had committed, he changed himself completely. It was further pleaded that Suresh Oberoi by using defamatory language towards Sant Valmiki. deliberately and maliciously with intent to outrage religious feelings of Valmikis of the country, caused insult to the religious feelings of the said community, it was next pleaded that Valmiki community of the country worship Sant Valmiki like a Bhagwan, and the accused by filming Sant Valmiki and giving interview to Film City Magazine and publishing objectionable obscene photographs in Film Reporter Issue No. 7 of May, 1989 in which Sant Valmiki (Suresh Oberoi) is touching a lady, from which it may be judged that said photograph lowered the estimation of Sant Balmiki in the eyes of Valmiki community and other people of the country, including complainants and accused have committed criminal offence punishable under Sections 294, 295A/500 read with Section 34 I P C 2. The learned counsel for the parties were heard.3. Dealing with the scope of inherent jurisdiction of this Court, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973, it was held by the apex Court, in State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1 that when the High Court is called upon to exercise this jurisdiction to quash a a proceeding at the stage of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, the High Court is guided by the allegations whether those allegations, set out in the complaint or the charge-sheet, do not in law constitute or spell out any offence and that resort to criminal proceedings, would, in the circumstances, amount to an abuse of the process of the Court or not.4. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the allegations made in the complaint regarding the defamatory statement attributed to Suresh Oberoi accused, in his interview referring Sant Valmiki being a dacoit in his early age and thereafter his becoming a Sant after realisation of criminal acts committed by him, would amount to glorification and, at any rate, would not amount to deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of Valmikis of the country, as alleged in the complaint 5. It is well settled that in order to make out a case of criminal intention, the totality of the circumstances in a particular case, have to be taken into consideration. From a careful perusal of the complaint, it cannot be said, at this stage, that reference to Sant Valmiki as Daku' in his earlier age and later his becoming as a Sant. would, by no means, outrage the religious feelings of Valmikis for whom Sant Valmiki is a Bhagwan. Nor, from the allegations in the complaint, or, the interview it can be said at this stage, that the accused-petitioners had not acted deliberately or with malicious intention, or, that the religious feelings of the Valmikis including the complainants, have not been outraged because of defamatory or issuing statement with regard to Sant Valmiki. Apart from that there are specific allegations in the complaint concerning publishing objectionable obscene photograph in Film Reporter in which Sant Valmiki (Suresh Oberoi accused) is shown to be touching a lady from which it may be judged that the said photograph had lowered the estimation of Sant Valmiki in the eyes of Valmiki community and other people of the country. 6. Taking the allegations, referred to above, at their face value, it cannot be said at this stage that no offence punishable under Sections 294. 295A/500 read with Section 34 I. P. C. is made out, as contended on behalf of the accused petitioners. Nor, in the circumstances of the case it can be said that the continuation of the criminal proceedings in the present case, on the basis of criminal complaint (Annexure P-l), or the summoning order (Annexure P-2), would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. However, it would be for the trial Court to decide all these matters in controversy between the parties on merits according to law and procedure 7. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed. However, it is clarified that nothing herein observed for the disposal of this petition, shall in any manner, be construed to effect the, merits of the case The trial Court is directed to dispose of this case expeditiously. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court.