Rajasthan High Court Quashes SC/ST Act Case Against Actress Shilpa Shetty For Using Word "Bhangi" In 2013 Interview
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed a complaint against the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) against actress Shilpa Shetty for using the word "Bhangi" in a 2013 Television interview.Justice Arun Monga held: "In light of the absence of essential ingredients for offenses under Section 153A IPC, the failure to adhere to mandatory procedural requirements under Section 196 Cr.P.C., and the...
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed a complaint against the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) against actress Shilpa Shetty for using the word "Bhangi" in a 2013 Television interview.
Justice Arun Monga held: "In light of the absence of essential ingredients for offenses under Section 153A IPC, the failure to adhere to mandatory procedural requirements under Section 196 Cr.P.C., and the lack of applicability of the SC/ST Act, the FIR is patently illegal and deserves to be quashed. The allegations neither substantiate the statutory elements of the cited offenses nor provide any basis for criminal proceedings against the Petitioner."
It was stated that Ashok Panwar had lodged a police complaint alleging that he saw an interview of two film actors i.e. Salman Khan and Shilpa Raj Kundra (petitioner herein) on T.V., wherein they used word "Bhangi". It was said that the word allegedly hurt the sentiments of the people belonging to the Valmiki community. Basis thereof, the FIR in question was registered and investigation ensued.
Counsel for the petitioner argues that, admittedly, the purported interview resulting in the impugned FIR was recorded in the year 2013. Whereas, FIR was belatedly lodged by the respondent no.2 on 22.12.2017 i.e. after more than 3 years. It was said that it is a settled proposition of law that unless the delay in FIR is explained, it is per se fatal.
It was argued that the SC/ST Act also does not apply, as the alleged remarks lack intent to humiliate based on caste. It is thus contended that the FIR is legally untenable and constitutes an abuse of process.
Accordingly, the court stated that there were no allegations against the petitioner that merited continuation of the present complaint and quashed the case.
Counsel for petitioner: Mr. Prashant Patil with Mr. Shakti Pandey, Mr. Gopal Sandhu, Ms. Palak Saxena and Mr. Atishay Jain.
Case: Shilpa Raj Kundra v State of Rajasthan.
Case No: S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1600/2018
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 365