Madras HC Quashes FIR Against ‘Jai Bhim’ Film, Says Complaint is Based on ‘Presumption’

Jai Bhim Law Insider

Siddhi Sharma

Published on: 12th August 2022 at 19:19 IST

The Madras High court quashed an FIR against the Director T J Gnanavel and Actor Suriya of the movie Jai Bhim. The FIR was filed on 17th May on the complaint of Advocate K Santhosh, the President of Rudra Vanniyar Sena.

The FIR was filed under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code. According to the complaint the character of a bad policeman in the movie was named Gurumurthy which is similar to Gurunathan, the name of a famous leader of the Vanniyar Community. The complainant accused the filmmakers of intending to hurt the sentiments of the community.

The Section 295A of IPC states that: “Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of 2 [citizens of India], 3 [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 4 [three years], or with fine, or with both.]”

The actor Suriya and the director Gnanavel filed a joint petition requesting the court to quash the FIR. The movie Jai Bhim is about the fight of a brave activist lawyer when a poor tribal man gets falsely accused for robbery and goes missing from the police custody.

Justice N. Sathish allowed the petition. It was observed by the judge that the FIR filed in this case was fallacious as no specific instance can be recorded which intends to incite violence and hostility towards a particular community.

The Court also observed that the FIR was based on mere inference and presumption of the complainant. The reference to a name does not allude to its relation to any particular community. court then went on to underline that to attract charges under Section 295A, there must be “deliberate and malicious intention on the part of the accused to outrage the religious feelings of any citizens

Further, it was indicated at the beginning of the movie that it was inspired by real-life events, and was not an actual portrayal of them.

According to the court, the complainant was free to not watch the movie if he was aggrieved by its making. The prosecution in this matter will infringe the rights of the filmmakers guaranteed under Section 19(1) of the Constitution of India.

The court was also critical of the magistrate who forwarded the complaint “without proper application of mind”. Justice Satish Kumar said while the magistrate had stated that the complaint disclosed a “congnisable offence”, it did not state what exactly it was.

Related Post