Allowed

Rajaram Shankar Patwardhan v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC20 Apr 2018APPLN/4746/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an application seeking quashment of an FIR where an article discussed Mahabharata incidents. The court held the comments were fair criticism and not intended to promote enmity. Additionally, proceedings against another accused without a known name were quashed as absurd.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Application was allowed; the FIR regarding the applicant and the other accused was quashed and set aside.

Rajaram Shankar Patwardhan Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 Cri. Appln No. 4746 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4746 OF 2017

¶4

Rajaram Shankar Patwardhan

¶5

...Applicant.

¶6

 Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶8

...Respondents.

¶9

Mr. Paranjape Prakash S. and Menezes Joslyn A.,
Advocate for Applicant.

¶10

Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for
Respondent No. 1 / State.
Mr. C. V. Thombre, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

¶11

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI. JJ.
DATE : 20-04-2018.

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT : [Per Prasanna B. Varale, J.]

¶13

Heard Mr. Paranjape learned Counsel

¶14

appearing for the applicant, Mr. Thombre learned
Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 and

¶15

learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent No.
1 / State.

¶16

02. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By

¶17

2 Cri. Appln No. 4746 of 2017

¶18

consent, heard finally.

¶19

03. By the present application, the applicant is

¶20

before this Court seeking quashment of first

¶21

information report vide Crime No. 0287 of 2017 lodged
by Mukundwadi Police Station for offences punishable
under Sections 153A, 294, 295, 354 read with Section
34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶22

04.Mr. Paranjape in his detail submission

¶23

firstly invited our attention to the copy of the
report which is placed on record at Exhibit “A”,
page No. 18A, along with the application. On perusal
of the document, it reveals that the respondent No. 2
approached the Police Station and submitted that she

¶24

is resident of Aurangabad and is running a private
study centre by name and style “Adarsh Abhyasika
Kendra”. She is also associated with an organisation

¶25

and works as District President of the said
organisation. Then it refers to an article published

¶26

in the Newspaper Divya Marathi in its Sunday Edition under the title Rasik Edition. Then it is stated in the complaint that article is titled as ^^nsoxq: c`gLirhps

¶27

3 Cri. Appln No. 4746 of 2017

¶28

orZu /keZekU;** . It is then stated that the article is

¶29

leading to raising a suspicion over a class of
society. It is then stated that the article refers
to the woman of particular society as making certain

¶30

indecent remarks to the woman of a particular
community. Then it is stated that because of the
said article life of the woman has become miserable

¶31

and it is difficult for any lady of the community to

¶32

move around in the society freely. Then it is stated
that by publishing such article, an attempt is made
to mislead the society and create dis-harmony in two
sections of the society and it is a designed attempt

¶33

to lead two sections of the society fight against
each other. Then it is stated that the section of a
particular community feels apprehended and unsafe

¶34

because of the article. Then it concludes with

¶35

request to the authority to take action against the
writer, the Executive Editor of the daily and the
daily itself. Though normally it may not be

¶36

necessary for us to refer all the contents in detail,

¶37

we have referred to all the contents so as to
appreciate the submissions advanced and the issue
raised in the matter.

¶38

4 Cri. Appln No. 4746 of 2017

¶39

05.Mr. Paranjape learned Counsel appearing for

¶40

the petitioner vehemently submitted that the article
is referring to particular part of Mahabharata and it
also refers to the source. Mr. Paranjape submitted
that the reference is to certain incidents of
Mahabharat and then it refers to the source as
Mahabharat, Adiparv Adhyay 105. Mr. Paranjape then
submitted that the article also refers to a fact that
those incidents stated in the article also find place

¶41

in other research work published by an institution
namely Bhandarkar Institute. Then Mr. Paranjape
invited our attention to the concluding part of the
article. Mr. Paranjape then submitted that on the
basis of the complaint, offences attracted against
the applicant are 153A, 294, 295, 354 read with
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Mr. Paranjape then
submitted that for applying provision of Section 153A
pre-requisite is of a sanction to be obtained. Then

¶42

he submitted that even taking the report as it is it

¶43

would not attract the said provision. Mr. Paranjape

¶44

submitted that an article refers to the incident of
Mahabharata. It is not the work of the writer, but
the writer of the article refers to the part of the

¶45

5 Cri. Appln No. 4746 of 2017

¶46

epic Mahabharata while referring to a particular era.

¶47

Then he submitted that attraction of provisions
namely Section 294 and 295 of Indian Penal Code is
nothing but the act of non-application of mind by the
authorities. He submitted that bare perusal of these
provisions would show that there is nothing in the
report to say that it relates to Section 294 which is
under the head of obscene acts and songs nor it
relates to Section 295 which is under the title
injuring or defiling place of worship with intent to
insult the religion of any class. Mr. Paranjape then
submitted that an attraction of Section 354 of Indian

¶48

Penal Code is clearly an act of absurdity. Mr.
Paranjape submits that in the complaint, it is stated

¶49

that the complainant / informant resides at
Aurangabad. The accused who is writer of the article
resides at Mumbai and in that situation one fails to
understand how Section 354 would be attracted against

¶50

the applicant. Thus, it was submitted by Mr.
Paranjape that even taking the report as it is
without adding any material to it or subtracting
anything from the report, the report utterly falls
short to make out a case for attracting any provision

¶51

6 Cri. Appln No. 4746 of 2017

¶52

of law as alleged in the report. The launching of criminal prosecution and its continuation would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. The learned Counsel then submitted that this Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure can prevent such an abuse of process of law. Mr. Paranjape then submitted that as a factual position, the article was published in the supplement dated 19^th March 2017 daily Divya Marathi and on 2^nd of April 2017 in another supplement of Divya Marathi i.e. Rasik, article countering the views of the applicant is published. Mr. Paranjape submitted that even the title of the said article is that article of the applicant is based on lack of research or study. He then submitted that in the counter article the writer of the article states that even prior to the article such attempt was made to mislead a common reader. It will not be out of place to refer to the title of this counter article. It is ^^vfHk:fpghu vkf.k

¶53

vfoosdh ys[ku** . Thus, Mr. Paranjape prayed for allowing the application.

¶54

7 Cri. Appln No. 4746 of 2017

¶55

06. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor made

¶56

available the material collected by investigation
agency.

¶57

07. Mr. Thombre learned Counsel appearing for
respondent No. 2 vehemently submitted that the
article is an attempt to lowering down status of
particular section of society, more particularly
womanhood. He then submitted that while filing the
application, the applicant had not placed the copy of

¶58

the article alongwith copy of report. Then he
submitted that assuming that the writer of the
article enjoys the freedom of expression including
expressing his view by a written material in the form
of an article, if an article written by the applicant
results in dis-harmony or leading to feeling of
hatred in two sections, lodgment of report to prevent
such act is clearly sustainable. Mr. Thombre then
submitted that there may not be material to clamp the
offences under Sections 294, 295 and 354 of Indian
Penal Code, but offence under Section 153A is clearly
made out.

¶59

8 Cri. Appln No. 4746 of 2017

¶60

08.On the rival submissions of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, we have gone
through the material placed on record. It may not be
necessary for us to reiterate the contents of the
complaint wherein reference is made to the contents
of article. It would be useful for us to refer to
certain facts. The article refers to those incidents
which are in Mahabharata. The incidents specifically
referred to are taken from a source material. It is

¶61

not in dispute, that the epics like Ramayana and
Mahabharata are studied by various scholars. There
is innumerous research work relating to Ramayana and
Mahabharata. It is also not in dispute that certain
research work includes some criticism on the customs
prevalent referred to in the work.

¶62

09. Mahabharata the epic tale lends itself to an
infinite number of interpretations. Even these
interpretations are from the point of view of
characters in the tale or philosophy or religion.
Some consider the epic as a mere story of
mythological heroes and Gods or historical or semi-
historical accounts of prince, princess and their

¶63

9 Cri. Appln No. 4746 of 2017

¶64

wars.

¶65

10. Now, in so far as the article in question is

¶66

concerned, we find considerable merit in the
submission of Mr. Paranjape. As stated above, it is
all about those incidents referred to in Mahabharata.
The reference is made to source material. It is
pertinent to note that the writer of the article even
refers to other research work published by Bhandarkar
Institute. What is important is, comment of the
writer concluding the article. The comment of the
writer reads thus :

¶67

^^R;k osGh irh & iRuh] L=h &iq:"k gh dkSVqafcd ukrh dkVsdksj uOgrh- nh?kZerkus loZizFke fL=;aklkBh vuqYya?kuh; e;kZnk ?kkrY;k- Eg.kts iq:"k eksdkVp jkfgys!**

¶68

The comment of the writer of the article is, for a
considerable long period the concept of the
matrimonial relationship as like as husband and wife
was not known and even the other family relations
were not in a typical form or there was no such

¶69

10 Cri. Appln No. 4746 of 2017

¶70

guided relationship prevalent at that point of time.
By a common conscious certain rules of behaviour were
framed for only women. The writer then states that
thus, it was a conditional behaviour of the women and
the male was spared from the conditional behaviour.

¶71

The author then wanted to submit that the male in the

¶72

society was enjoying freedom and was free to act as
per his will and wish. Thus, if the comment of the
writer of the article is considered, we are of the
opinion that this comment is a fair criticism. If a
writer criticizes that the situation prevalent at

¶73

that point of time was only for restricted behaviour
of women and the male in the society were enjoying
freedom and this was not a fair approach. Then we

¶74

find that this comment can be treated as a
progressive thought because the writer wanted a fair

¶75

and equal treatment to both the sections of the

¶76

society, namely, the women and the men. Thus, if the
comment of the writer of the article is considered we

¶77

are of the opinion that this comment is a fair
criticism. If a writer criticizes that the prevalent
situation was only rules for female and male were
enjoying free status without restrictions or

¶78

11 Cri. Appln No. 4746 of 2017

¶79

condition, this could not be termed to be a fair act.
We are aware of our limits dealing in the matters
wherein the quashment of first information report is
sought for. But, here in the present matter before
us, the issue is also about a fair comment of a
writer.

¶80

11. It is also not in dispute that the thought
expressed by the writer was immediately countered by
another writer. In our opinion, this was a proper

¶81

way to counter a thought by another thought. It is
also accepted way of a progressive society i.e. to
counter one thought if it is lacking in study by
another thought which is based on a better research.
It will not be out of place for us to refer an often

¶82

quoted principle in Sanskrit read as ^^okns okns tk;rs rRo

¶83

cks/kk** . It can be loosely translated as if one submission is countered by another submission, it

¶84

helps to understand the principle in a better way and
there cannot be any criticism for accepting such a
method.

¶85

12 Cri. Appln No. 4746 of 2017

¶86

12. In so far as attracting the provisions, Mr.
Paranjape was absolutely justified in submitting that
attracting Section 153-A was a serious error
committed. It may not be out of place to refer to
the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court while
dealing with this Section in the Judgment Balwant
Singh and Anr. V/s State of Punjab, reported in AIR
1995 Supreme Court 1785. Hon’ble Apex Court observed
thus :

¶87

“In so far as the findings under Section

¶88

153A of Indian Penal Code is concerned it
provides for punishment for promoting
enmity between different groups on grounds

¶89

of religion, race, place of birth,
residence, language, caste or community or

¶90

any other ground whatsoever or brings about
disharmony or feeling of hatred or ill-will
between different religious, racial,
language or regional groups or castes or
communities. It is only where the written

¶91

or spoken words have the tendency or
intention of creating public disorder or

¶92

13 Cri. Appln No. 4746 of 2017

¶93

disturbance of law and order or affect

¶94

public tranquility, that the law needs to
step in, to prevent such an activity. The

¶95

intention to cause disorder or incite
people to violence is the sine qua non of
the offence under Section 153A, I. P. C.

¶96

and the prosecution has to prove the existence of mens rea in order to succeed.”

¶97

As the matter relates to epic of Mahabharata and as
the article refers to its source, it will not be out
of place to refer the work under title “Sampoorna
Mahabharata”, Pro. Bhalba Kelkar. It also refers to
as Adiparv Adhyay 1st and then there is also reference
to Adhyay 105th . Thus, what reveals is, this source
material referred to by the writer of the article is
not his own creation. If it is not the own creation
of the writer if it is a reference to a source
material then Mr. Paranjape the learned Counsel for
the applicant was wholly justified in submitting that
lodgment of the report and for an unsustainable
material attracting criminal provisions and asking
the applicant to face a criminal prosecution would

¶98

14 Cri. Appln No. 4746 of 2017

¶99

nothing but an abuse of process of law. Considering
all these facts we are of the opinion that the
counsel for the applicant had made out a case for
grant of relief as prayed in the application.

¶100

13.On the backdrop of these facts, we are

¶101

unable to accept the submission of Mr. Thombre that
writer of the article mis-used the freedom of

¶102

expression.

¶103

14.Mr. Thombre learned Counsel made a

¶104

submission that the quashment of the report may be restricted to the applicant only and the prosecution may go on in respect of other accused. The copy of the report placed on record show that it refers to two accused persons. It is very interesting to note that column reads as ^^ekfgrh vlysY;k vjksihps laiw.kZ uako o

¶105

iRrk** . In the said coloumn two accused are referred, No. 1 is the present applicant, No. 2 is referred as Executive Editor of the daily. As stated above if there is only a vague reference to applicant No. 2 of his occupation as a Executive Editor of daily and no

¶106

15 Cri. Appln No. 4746 of 2017

¶107

other details are referred to in the report such as
his name, etc. Then lodgment of report against a
unknown identity and continuation of the proceeding
would be nothing but an absurd proceeding and
resultantly, the report will have to be quashed. We
see no reason to continue the proceedings against the
other accused whose identity even is not known to
anybody. Resultantly, the report will have to be
quashed not only in respect of the applicant, but in
respect of other accused also.

¶108

In the result, following order;

¶109

ORDER

¶110

(i) Criminal Application is

¶111

allowed.

¶112

(ii) The FIR bearing C. R. No. 287
of 2017, lodged at Mukundwadi
Police Station for offences
punishable under Sections 153A,

¶113

294, 295, 354 read with Section
34 of Indian Penal Code in

¶114

16 Cri. Appln No. 4746 of 2017

¶115

respect of the applicant as
well, other accused, is quashed
and set aside.

¶116

(iii) Rule made absolute in the above
terms.

¶117

 [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] [PRASANNA B. VARALE]
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶118

ggd/-.

Rajaram Shankar Patwardhan v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajaram Shankar Patwardhan v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Trupti W/O. Bharat Wani @ Trupti D/O. Rajhans Gulve and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Balaji Basuraj Kamthane

Kamalkishor S/O. Pusaram Bang Vs the Superintendent of Police, Jalna and Others

Babasaheb Yadavrao Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Radhika @ Radha W/O. Bhanudas Salunke and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kantilal S/O. Zamu Gaikwad and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.