CHENNAI: IS prior sanction from the government a must to initiate criminal proceedings against someone for hurting any class by insulting its religion or beliefs?
'Yes,' insisted Justice P Kalaiyarasan of the Madras High Court recently. And applying this logic, the judge quashed the criminal proceedings against the controversial godman Nityananda before the district munsif-cum-judicial magistrate, Sriperumbudur, on November 28.
Based on a complaint from K Selvamani, an advocate, the magistrate took cognizance of the case for an offence punishable under section 295 of the IPC in 2010. Aggrieved, Nityananda preferred the present criminal original petition to quash the proceedings.
According to Nityananda, a private TV channel telecast a video footage showing him in the company of actor Ranjitha, one of his devotees, on March 2, 2010. And on March 11 Selvamani lodged a private complaint before the Sriperumbudur magistrate, alleging that the godman had committed an offence under Section 295-A of the IPC.
The godman’s advocates G Bala and Daisy submitted that the complaint had been made without application of mind to the statutes, facts and materials. The magistrate had erred in taking cognizance of the case despite the specific prohibition under Section 196(1) of the CrPC.
This section states that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter VI or under Section 153-A and Section 295-A or sub-section (1) of 505 of the IPC except with the previous sanction of the Central or the State government concerned. In the private complaint by Selvamani, no such sanction had been obtained. In the absence of the sanction, the magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the stated offence, the advocates asserted. Accepting their submissions, Justice Kalaiyarasan quashed the proceedings pending before the Sriperumbudur magistrate against Nityananda.