# Sanjay Dutt v. The State of U.P and others

- **Citation:** (2011) 1 ILRA 18
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-01-20
- **Bench:** Satyendra Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjay-dutt-v-the-state-of-u-p-and-others-41831
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 482summoning order-offence U/S 294 for
allegation repeating filmy dialogue-not
amount-to offence alleged-operation of
summoning order stayed.

Held: Para 12

He has merely repeated the dialogue of
the film and repeating of dialogue of his
film does not amount to coining some
phrase or remark being obscene against
any
person.
Gandhian
theory
as
propounded by the petitioner was his
prerogative,
therefore,
in
the
circumstances, it appears that process of
law has been misused.
Case law discussed:
1956 S.C. 541 (S) AIR V 43 C 93 Aug.

## Text

18 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
old joint family system still working
satisfactorily
in
the
villages
may
continue for all time to come. The
denial of certificate solely on the ground
that a person is residing in ancestral
house constructed over the abadi land
shall be violative of fundamental right
as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of
the Constitution of India. Restrictions
and conditions should be reasonable to
meet out the requirement of Article 14
of the Constitution of India. No person
should be deprived from his source of
livelihood only because he or she is the
members of the joint Hindu Family
residing in his or her ancestral house.
Guidelines may be framed in such a
manner so that in the event of default,
recovery may be made from the share of
such
persons-whether
it
is
from
agricultural land or portion of house but
absolute denial shall be detrimental to
joint families which is still continuing in
the State of U.P. in the rural area.

10. A copy of the present order
shall be sent to the Chief Secretary,
State of U.P. to prepare guidelines with
regard to issuance of status certificate
by
the
District
Magistrate
and
consequential circular so that persons
residing in their ancestral house or who
are members of joint families may not
be deprived to carry on their profession
or trade.

11. The District Magistrate shall
take a fresh decision keeping in view
the observations made hereinabove,
expeditiously.

12. Subject to above, writ petition
is disposed of finally.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.01.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SATYENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

U/S 482/378/407 No. - 267 of 2011

Sanjay Dutt

 ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P and others...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Kunwar Siddharth Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt.Advocate

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 482summoning order-offence U/S 294 for
allegation repeating filmy dialogue-not
amount-to offence alleged-operation of
summoning order stayed.

Held: Para 12

He has merely repeated the dialogue of
the film and repeating of dialogue of his
film does not amount to coining some
phrase or remark being obscene against
any
person.
Gandhian
theory
as
propounded by the petitioner was his
prerogative,
therefore,
in
the
circumstances, it appears that process of
law has been misused.
Case law discussed:
1956 S.C. 541 (S) AIR V 43 C 93 Aug.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.S. Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri I. B. Singh, Senior
Advocate on behalf of petitioner assisted by
Kunwar Siddharth Singh and the learned
A.G.A.

2. Through this petition, the petitioner
has challenged the charge sheet no. 36 of
1 All] Sanjay Dutt V. The State of U.P and others
19
2010 dated 6.2.2010 filed against him under
Section 294 IPC .

3. The petitioner is alleged to have
committed an offence punishable under
Section 294 IPC during the course of a
speech given for campaigning of a political
party, namely 'Samajwadi party'. Such
utterances and statement are said to have
been made on the basis of a film namely '
Munna Bhai M.B.B.S.' whose hero was the
petitioner. The film according to the public
perception was widely appreciated as it was
based on Mahatama Gandhi's ideology and
also it was on the basis that every thing can
be solved through love and affection instead
of indulging into the act of violence. The
petitioner while giving political speech at a
meeting organized by the said party
proceeded to give a statement to the effect
that the public may approach the Chief
Minister and give her ' Jadu Ki Jhappi' and '
Jadu Ki Pappi' for redressal of its grievances
and thereafter problems will be solved and
upon the said statement the State machinery
i.e. certain officers of the district became
over active and proceeded to lodge an FIR
against the petitioner. After lodging of the
FIR statement of witnesses were recorded
and thereafter a charge sheet has been filed.

4. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that ingredients of Section
294 as contemplated under the I.P.C.are not
complete from the evidence which has been
collected during the course of investigation.
Therefore, the trial court can not proceed
against the petitioner. It has also been
submitted that there has been no offence
and the public at large can not be said to be
affected and annoyed on account of this
statement but for the official who has
lodged the FIR. The FIR was lodged with a
view to please the Chief Minister and
nothing more than that. He has relied upon
Section 294 IPC which reads as under :-

5. " 294-Obscene acts and songs -
Whoever, to the annoyance of others--

(a) does any obscene act in any public
place, or

(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene
song, ballad or words, in or near any public
place,

shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may
extend to three months, or with fine, or with
both."

6. In support of his contention he has
placed reliance upon the decision of the
Madras High Court in the case of
K.Jayaramanuju Vs. Janakaraj and
others, 1997 CRI.L.J.1623 where in similar
question of uttering of obscene words was
involved and the Madras High Court while
considering the question held that in order
to prove the offence under Section 294 IPC
mere utterance of obscene words are not
sufficient but there must be a further proof
to establish that it was to the annoyance of
others. Since the said evidence was lacking
in the said case the accused was acquitted.

7. The next case on which reliance has
been placed is the case of Kartar Singh
and others Vs. The State of Punjab, 1956
S.C. 541 (S) AIR V 43 C 93 Aug.) to give
support to his argument that if any
statement is made against a Minister then
whether it amounts to disturbing the State
security and whether that will amount to
defamation.

8. Support has also been taken by the
petitioner in regard to the fact that people in
20 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
public life in a democratic State are open to
criticism and they should accept it open
heart rather than taking it offensive. The
vanity should not come in the mind of the
people who are in public life and they
should be open to criticism and they must
ready to bear the criticism to that extent. In
para 12 of the judgment it has been held as
under :-

"These
slogans
were
certainly
defamatory of the Transport Minister and
the
Chief
Minister
of
the
Punjab
Government but the redress of that
grievance was personal to these individuals
and the State authorities could not take the
cudgels on their behalf by having recourse
to section 9 of the Act unless and until the
defamation
of
these
individuals
was
prejudicial to the security of the State or the
maintenance of public order.

So far as these individuals were
concerned, they did not take any notice of
these vulgar abuses and appeared to have
considered the whole thing as beneath their
notice. Their conduct in this behalf was
consistent with the best traditions of
democracy. "Those who fill a public
position must not be too thin skinned in
reference to comments made upon them. It
would often happen that observations would
be made upon public men which they know
from the bottom of their hearts were
undeserved and unjust yet they must bear
with them and submit to the misunderstood
for a time" (Per Cockburn, C.J. in Saymour
v. Butterworth (1) and gee the dicta of the
judges in R. V. Sir R. Carden (2). "Whoever
fills a public position renders himself open
thereto. He must accept an attack as a
necessary, though unpleasant, appendage to
his office" (Per Bramwell, B., in Kelley v.
Sherlock (3). Public men in such positions
may as well think it worth their while to
ignore such vulgar criticisms and abuses
hurled against them rather than give
importance to the same by prosecuting the
persons responsible for the same."

9. Learned AGA was asked to bring to
the notice of the Court the clinching
evidence, which may fasten the liability of
criminal act punishable under Section 294
IPC in respect of the petitioner. The entire
evidence which has been annexed along
with the charge sheet is that of only
government officials. The ingredients of
Section 294 IPC go to indicate that it should
be of annoyance to others. The word 'others'
goes to indicate that it should be annoyance
to the persons who are independent and
who are neither party to any of the section
of the society and it should be to the public.

10. Apart from the government
official, no statement of any public person
has been recorded to indicate that there was
annoyance to others. Even if the argument
of learned AGA is accepted, then the
annoyance of person concerned against
whom statement has been made is not
explicit from the record.

11. In absence of clinching evidence,
the charge sheet which has been filed, does
not inspire confidence and the petitioner has
every chance of success. The circumstances
in which the statement has been made does
not lead to inference from any corner that it
was made with a view to make any obscene
remark against the Chief Minister. It
appears that it was made in respectful
friendly atmosphere and in a lighter vein
rather than in derogatory manner.

12. He has merely repeated the
dialogue of the film and repeating of
dialogue of his film does not amount to
coining some phrase or remark being
1 All] Praveen Kumar Agarwal and others V. State of U.P and another
21
obscene against any person. Gandhian
theory as propounded by the petitioner was
his
prerogative,
therefore,
in
the
circumstances, it appears that process of law
has been misused.

13. Since it is at the interim stage, I do
not dwelve into that subject further.

14. Let learned AGA may file counter
affidavit within four weeks and the
thereafter the petitioner has two weeks to
file rejoinder affidavit. List thereafter.

15. In the meantime the operation of
the summoning order dated 2.4.2010 passed
in Case No. 1107/2010 (State Vs. Sanjay
Dutt) pending in the court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Pratapgarh, shall remain stayed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.11.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE VEDPAL, J.

Service Bench No. 556 of 2009

Praveen Kumar Agarwal and others

 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P.and another ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Asit Kumar Chaturvedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P.
Development
Authorities
Centerlised Services Rules, 1985-Rule34, 37 and 38-Post retiral benefits
including regular pension-claimed by
the
employees
Development
Authorities-on background by statuary
provision-when
they
got
retirement
benefits
like
other
State
Govt.
employees up to 1999-by impugned
circular it can not be denial-heldbeneficial
legislation
dealing
with
human
rights-should
not
be
facial
cosmetics-it can not be taken-away or
with held while made available up to
1999-even
on
different
mode
of
recruitment with different appointing
authorities-they constitute one block
and collectively carry out the statutory
provisions can not be discriminated.

Held: Para 47 and 57

Provisions contained in Rule 34, 37 and
Rule
38
(supra),
are
beneficial
provisions
and
should
be
read
collectively along with Section 24 and
other related provisions. The beneficial
legislation
or
statutory
provisions
dealing with
the
human
rights
or
livelihood should be made functional
and not facial cosmetics as held by
Hon'ble Supreme court in AIR 1987 SC
1086: M.C. Mehta and another. Vs.
Union
of
India
and
others.
Their
lordships in the said case has reiterated
the constitutional spirits propounded in
the case reported in Rammana Shett's
case
(AIR
1979
SC1628)
and
the
Constitution
Bench
observed
that
functional realism should be looked into
and not facial cosmetics.

In spite of repeated query made by this
Court, learned standing counsel failed to
bring on record any material which may
justify the issuance of impugned order
more so, when regular pension was paid
in pursuance of earlier circular/orders of
1983 (supra) which are in consonance
with the Statutory provisions (supra).
The State Government seems to have
acted arbitrarily in violation of statutory
provisions. By executive instructions, the
rights
flowing
from
the
statutory
provisions, cannot be taken away or
withheld more so, when it was made
available upto 1999.
Case law discussed:
(2002) 4 SCC 297, (2003) 3 SCC 410, (2006) 5
SCC 745, (2007) 10 SCC 528, AIR 1954 SC