The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against Vivek Kumar and several others in a case alleging offences under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), holding that the trial court could not have taken cognisance without the mandatory prior sanction required under law. At the same time, the Court declined to quash the FIR itself, observing that the allegations required examination during trial.
Background of the Case
The case arose from FIR No. 173 of 2023 registered at Police Station Nalagarh, Solan district. According to the prosecution, books allegedly containing objectionable remarks against Hindu deities and saints were being distributed by followers associated with Sant Rampal Maharaj. The complainant alleged that the publications hurt religious sentiments, leading police to register an offence under Section 295A read with Section 34 IPC and subsequently file a charge sheet.
The petitioners approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings. They argued that prosecution under Section 295A IPC could not continue without prior sanction from the competent government authority and also contended that the books merely expressed theological criticism without any deliberate intention to outrage religious feelings.
Court's Observations
Justice Rakesh Kainthla noted that Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes previous sanction from the Central Government, State Government or the District Magistrate mandatory before a court can take cognisance of an offence under Section 295A IPC.
Referring to earlier judicial precedents, the Court observed,
"Prior sanction by the Government is a sine qua non for initiating proceedings under Section 295A of the Penal Code."
The Court found that no sanction had been obtained before the charge sheet was filed. Although the State informed the Court that a request for sanction had later been sent to the District Magistrate, the Court held that this did not cure the legal defect because cognisance had already been taken without jurisdiction.
However, the High Court rejected the petitioners' request to quash the FIR itself. It observed that the seized books allegedly contained remarks against Hindu gods and saints, and whether those statements amounted to an offence was a matter to be examined during trial.
The bench observed,
"Prima facie, making the defamatory remarks against the Hindu Gods and Saints... can lead to an inference that these were made with the intent to outrage the religious beliefs."
The Court also clarified that the constitutional right to freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions, including considerations of public order.
Decision
Partly allowing the petition, the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, on the ground that cognisance had been taken without the mandatory sanction required under Section 196 CrPC.
However, it expressly permitted the State to initiate fresh proceedings after obtaining the requisite sanction, if otherwise permissible in law, while leaving all legal defences open to the petitioners in any future proceedings.
Case Details
Case Title: Vivek Kumar & Others v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Another
Case Number: Cr. MMO No. 119 of 2026
Judge: Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Decision Date: 17 July 2026
