CBFC-Certified Film Cannot Invite Criminal Prosecution for Hurting Religious Sentiments Absent Deliberate Malicious Intent: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Rajkumar Yadav @ Raj Kumar Yadav @ Rajkummar Rao v. State of Punjab & Another; Nitin Upadhyaya v. State of Punjab & Another; Anthony Raymond Philip Dsouza @ Tony v. State of Punjab & Another
Date of Judgment: 29 May 2026
Citation: CRM-M-39247-2025; CRM-M-56441-2025; CRM-M-56640-2025
Bench: Justice H.S. Grewal
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed an FIR registered against actor Rajkummar Rao and the producers of the film Behen Hogi Teri, holding that the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 295-A and 120-B IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act were not made out. The Court held that criminal prosecution for allegedly hurting religious sentiments cannot be sustained in the absence of deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings.
Summary: The petitions arose from FIR No. 74 dated 19.04.2017 registered at Police Station Division No. 5, Jalandhar, alleging that a promotional poster of the film Behen Hogi Teri depicted actor Rajkummar Rao in the attire of Lord Shiva while seated on a motorcycle, thereby hurting the religious sentiments of Hindus. The FIR invoked Sections 295-A and 120-B IPC as well as Section 67 of the Information Technology Act.
The petitioners contended that the film had already been granted a ‘UA’ certificate by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) after scrutiny under the applicable guidelines of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. It was argued that the film had not even been released for public viewing at the relevant time and that the prosecution was based solely on a promotional poster circulated on social media.
The Court examined the scope of Section 295-A IPC and reiterated the settled principle that the provision does not criminalize every act that may offend religious sentiments. Rather, the offence is attracted only where there is a deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings of a class of citizens. Mere criticism, depiction, satire, artistic expression or unintended offence is insufficient to constitute the offence.
Justice H.S. Grewal extensively relied upon decisions of the Supreme Court interpreting Section 295-A IPC, including precedents emphasizing that the provision punishes only aggravated forms of insult to religion accompanied by deliberate and malicious intent. The Court noted that the material on record failed to disclose any calculated attempt by the actor or producers to insult Hinduism or provoke communal disharmony.
The Court further referred to judicial precedents involving films and artistic works where criminal proceedings were quashed because the essential requirement of mens rea was absent. It observed that artistic expression and cinematic portrayals cannot automatically become criminal offences merely because some individuals perceive them as objectionable.
Applying the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and other precedents governing quashing of criminal proceedings, the Court held that continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of law since the allegations, even if accepted on their face value, did not satisfy the statutory ingredients of the offences alleged.
Decision: Allowing all three petitions, the Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed FIR No. 74 dated 19.04.2017 registered under Sections 295-A and 120-B IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, along with the final report/challan and all consequential proceedings. The Court concluded that the allegations failed to establish deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings and that continuation of the criminal case would constitute an abuse of the judicial process.