Allahabad HC Quashes Complaint Against MLA Swami Prasad Maurya For His Alleged Statement Against Goddess Gauri & Lord Ganesha

The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday quashed a criminal complaint filed against Samajwadi Party MLA Swami Prasad Maurya over his alleged statement made in the year 2014 that "Goddess Gauri or Lord Ganesha should not be worshipped during weddings".

The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi also quashed the order of the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur passed in November 2014 summoning Maurya to face charges under Section 295A IPC.

The bench ordered thus while holding that the order taking cognizance of the complaint and summoning Maurya to face trial for commission of offence under Section 295A IPC without obtaining the mandatory sanction of the Government as provided under Section 196 CrPC was not sustainable in law.

The proceedings against Maurya were initiated on the basis of a complaint filed by respondent no. 2 stating that on September 22, 2014, a news item regarding Maurya's impugned statement was published in a Hindi daily newspaper which hurt the religious sentiments of the complainant.

It was contended in the complaint that Maurya had knowingly hurt the religious sentiments of persons following the Hindu religion. After recording statements under Section 200 and 202 CrPC, the trial Court passed an order summoning Maurya to face trial for committing an offence under Section 295-A IPC.

Challenging the summoning order, Maurya moved the HC on the ground that the Court took cognizance of the complaint without the previous sanction of the Government required under Section 196 CrPC and, therefore, the summoning order is bad in law.

Though the AGA Jayant Singh Tomar, for the state government, raised a preliminary objection that the ground raised by Maurya before the HC was neither raised before the trial Court nor was it raised before the revisional Court, the Court said that a new plea raising a pure question of law can be raised at any stage and a plea relating to jurisdiction of the Court can also be raised at any stage.

The Court further rejected another argument of the AGA that the summoning order has been passed on a complaint and there is no need to obtain sanction from the Government in case a private complaint is filed by a complainant, as the bench observed thus:

"Section 196 clearly prohibits the Courts from taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 295 IPC except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government. Section 196 Cr.P.C. does not make any distinction between the cases initiated by lodging an FIR and the case initiated by filing a complaint and the aforesaid statutory provision applies equally to cases initiated in both the aforesaid manners."

In view of this, finding cognizance of the complaint and order summoning Maurya to be bad in law, the Court allowed the plea and quashed the summoning order passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Sultanpur and the entire proceedings of the complaint.

Appearances

Counsel for Applicant: JS Kashyap, Ajai Kumar Singh, SD Yadav

Counsel for Opposite Party: Govt. Advocate, Aseem Kumar Pandey

Case title - Swami Prasad Maurya vs. State Of U.P. And Anr [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 55 of 2016]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 155

Click Here To Read/Download Order