Case at a glance: The Gujarat High Court has quashed a 2017 FIR under Section 295A IPC against a Surat textile trader for selling sarees bearing images of Lord Gautam Buddha. As reported, it held that Section 295A punishes only deliberate and malicious insult to religious feelings, and that printing or selling such material cannot automatically be presumed to be driven by malice.
The FIR was lodged on 21 December 2017 at Salabatpura Police Station, Surat, by the President of the Samast Yuva Ambedkar Samaj. It alleged that sarees with images of Lord Gautam Buddha on the border or pallu were being sold in the Surat textile market. The applicant, trading as Shivam Textiles, was booked under Section 295A read with Section 114 IPC.
The applicant argued that the ingredients of the offence were missing, the FIR was delayed without explanation, and the complaint arose from business rivalry. The State said the photographs made out a prima facie case.
The Key Question Before the Court
Does selling sarees bearing a religious figure's image, without more, amount to an offence under Section 295A IPC?
Deliberate and Malicious Intent Is the Core
As reported, the Court applied the Bhajan Lal categories and relied on Ramji Lal Modi and Mahendra Singh Dhoni, holding that Section 295A covers only aggravated insults made with deliberate and malicious intention.
The undisputed photographs showed no such intent, and a police report recorded that others in Surat sold similar material. It also relied on Maninder Singh v. State of Punjab (P&H) and found continuation of the prosecution to be an abuse of process.
What the Court Actually Held
- The FIR and all consequential proceedings were quashed qua the applicant.
- Section 295A requires deliberate and malicious intent.
- Printing or selling religious images is not automatically malicious.
- Continuing the prosecution was an abuse of process.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It protects traders from criminal cases over design choices without malicious intent.
- It reaffirms the narrow scope of Section 295A (now Section 299 BNS).
- It applies Bhajan Lal to blasphemy-type FIRs.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Accused Persons' Counsel
- Show absence of deliberate and malicious intent from the material itself.
- Highlight similar conduct by others and any business rivalry.
For Complainants' Counsel
- Plead facts showing intent to outrage religious feelings, not just the existence of the image.
Key Takeaways
- Section 295A needs deliberate and malicious intent.
- Selling products with religious images is not automatically an offence.
- The FIR was quashed as an abuse of process.
Frequently Asked Questions
The Court found no deliberate and malicious intent, which Section 295A requires.
Ramji Lal Modi, Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Bhajan Lal, among others, as reported.
The equivalent offence is Section 299 BNS; the reasoning on intent is relevant, though this case was under the IPC.
Conclusion
The ruling keeps Section 295A focused on deliberate insult rather than commercial use of imagery.
Practical takeaway: In Section 295A/299 BNS matters, test the FIR for specific facts showing malicious intent.