HC stays trial court proceedings against Rajkummar Rao in 2017 FIR over film role

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed further proceedings against actor Rajkummar Rao before a Jalandhar court in a case arising out of a 2017 FIR, alleging that his portrayal of Lord Shiva in the film was objectionable and hurt religious sentiments. Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor also fixed December 10 as the next date of hearing in the matter.

Rao had moved the court through senior advocate Puneet Bali and counsel Tejeshwar Singh seeking the quashing of the FIR registered on April 19, 2017, under Sections 295-A and 120-B IPC and the provisions of the IT Act at Division No.5 police station in Jalandhar. He had also challenged the final report, challan dated January 31, 2022, and July 4 order passed by Jalandhar Judicial Magistrate First Class issuing non-bailable warrants against Rao and others, along with all consequential proceedings.

Bali and Tejeshwar Singh argued false allegations had been levelled in the FIR. The complaint alleged that two other accused were involved in the release of the film Behen Hogi Teri, in which Rao was playing the role of Lord Shiva in an objectionable and disrespectful manner that could hurt religious sentiments.

The counsel contended that no offence under Section 295-A of the IPC was made out. He submitted that Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) — a statutory body under the Cinematograph Act — had duly reviewed and certified the film after scrutinising its content, including the scenes where the petitioner appeared dressed as Lord Shiva or seated on a motorcycle. Since CBFC is the competent authority to assess whether content is offensive, obscene, or derogatory, its certification negated the allegations of religious insult.

It was further argued that the portrayal must be examined within the ambit of artistic expression protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Criminal prosecution could not be sustained on the basis of individual or group reactions when the statutory authority had not found the content objectionable. The FIR, final report, and proceedings were, therefore, termed as an abuse of the process of law.

Opposing the plea, the state counsel argued that the allegations attracted the provisions of Sections 295-A and 120-B IPC and Section 67 of the IT Act. He submitted that while filmmakers and performers enjoyed freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a). But the freedom was subject to restrictions, including those meant to prevent hurting religious sentiments.