HC quashes FIR against Shekhar Suman, Bharti Singh over comedy show remarks

The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR against comedian Bharti Singh and actor Shekhar Suman, stating comedy shouldn't be judged like serious speech.

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Wednesday quashed a first information report (FIR) filed against comedian Bharti Singh and actor Shekhar Suman for allegedly hurting religious sentiments during a comedy show aired on Sony entertainment channel. The court held that while the essential ingredients of the offence were not made out, comedy performances should not be judged by the same parameters as serious speech.

(Shutterstock)

In the FIR filed in 2010 regarding allegedly offensive remarks made on the show ‘Comedy Circus Ka Jadoo’, Sony and a scriptwriter were named as accused, apart from the comedian and the actor. The FIR was lodged based on a complaint from a representative of Raza Academy, who claimed that Singh had cracked a joke about a Quranic verse on the show co-hosted by the actor, which was offensive to Islam; Suman had repeated the verse after Singh, the complainant claimed.

Singh, Suman and the other accused were booked under sections 295 (injuring or defiling a place of worship with the intent to insult the religion of any class) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.

Advocate Niteen Pradhan, who represented the comedian and the actor, submitted that the police probe against the duo, who were merely discharging their roles as a judge and a performing artist, was wholly unnecessary, unjustified, and unwarranted.

”The programme was in the nature of light entertainment, and was devoid of any intention to insult or outrage the religious feelings of any particular class or community,” he said.

Additional public prosecutor Megha Bajoria submitted that given seriousness of the allegations, whether the petitioners had committed the alleged offences or not would be examined during the course of trial.

A single judge bench of Justice Amit Borkar, however, set aside the FIR, noting that the performers and judges in such programmes are meant to create laughter, and they “do not stand in the position of a speaker making a declaration against a religious group”.

The court clarified that the role attributed to the duo was “too remote” to bring them within the purview of offences alleged by the complainant, and no material had been found showing such deliberate or malicious intention on their part.

“The performance appears to have been made in a theatrical manner, with the object of entertainment. That does not by itself create criminality,” the bench remarked. Continuation of criminal proceedings against them would amount to misuse of process, the court said.