Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman Who Dressed Pet Dog as Lord Krishna, Holds No Offence Under Section 298 BNS Without Malicious Intent
Case Name: Ranjanni Gaur v. State of Punjab and Another
Date of Judgment: 01 July 2026
Citation: CRM-M-11112-2025
Bench: Justice Subhas Mehla
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that dressing a pet dog as Lord Krishna and sharing its photograph as a WhatsApp status, without any deliberate or malicious intention to insult religion or outrage religious feelings, does not constitute an offence under Section 298 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Court held that the offence requires both the physical ingredients of defilement or damage to a sacred object or place of worship and the requisite mens rea of intentionally insulting religion or knowing that such conduct is likely to be perceived as an insult. Mere subjective or hypersensitive perceptions of religious offence cannot justify criminal prosecution. Holding that the petitioner’s conduct was a bona fide expression of affection and devotion protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 25 of the Constitution, the Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings.
Summary: Allowing a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking quashing of criminal proceedings, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that criminal law cannot be invoked merely because an individual’s personal expression is perceived as offensive by a section of society. The petitioner, an issueless woman employed as a bank manager, had dressed her pet dog in attire associated with Lord Krishna during Janmashtami and uploaded the photograph as her WhatsApp status. A complaint was subsequently lodged alleging that the act had hurt the religious sentiments of the Hindu community, leading to registration of an FIR under Section 298 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Examining the scope of Section 298 BNS, the Court held that the provision applies only where there is destruction, damage or defilement of a place of worship or an object held sacred by a class of persons. Referring to judicial precedents interpreting the corresponding provision under the Indian Penal Code, the Court observed that the decorative items used by the petitioner, including a crown, yellow cloth and peacock feather, could not be treated as sacred objects within the meaning of the provision. The essential physical ingredient of the offence was therefore absent.
The Court further held that the offence under Section 298 BNS necessarily requires proof of deliberate intention or knowledge to insult religion. Criminal liability cannot be founded upon the subjective reactions of hypersensitive individuals but must be assessed from the standpoint of an ordinary, reasonable member of the concerned community. Drawing support from the Supreme Court’s adoption of the “community standards test” in Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, the Court observed that criminal law cannot be permitted to validate every claim of perceived religious hurt.
Rejecting the prosecution’s case, the Court found that the petitioner belonged to the Hindu faith herself and had explained that she treated her pet dog as her own child because she had remained issueless after marriage. The photograph was posted only as a WhatsApp status as an expression of affection and devotion during Janmashtami, and not with any intention to insult religion or provoke public disorder. The Court extensively referred to Hindu scriptures, including the Bhagavad Gita, the Mahabharata, the Upanishads, Advaita Vedanta and the Bhakti tradition, to observe that Hindu philosophy recognises divinity in all living beings and does not support the inference that the petitioner’s conduct amounted to sacrilege.
Emphasising constitutional protections, the Court held that Articles 19(1)(a) and 25 safeguard symbolic expression and bona fide acts of devotion unless they threaten public order or morality. Relying upon Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar, Priya Prakash Varrier v. State of Telangana and other precedents, the Court reiterated that in the absence of deliberate and malicious intent, criminal prosecution for allegedly hurting religious sentiments cannot be sustained. Constitutional tolerance, the Court observed, must prevail over hypersensitivity. Consequently, the FIR, the final report and all consequential proceedings were quashed.
Decision: The petition was allowed. The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the FIR and all consequential criminal proceedings against the petitioner.