Court reserves order on revision petition seeking FIR against art gallery

New Delhi [India], April 21 (ANI): Delhi's Patiala House Court on Monday reserved its order after hearing arguments on a revision petition seeking an FIR against an Art Gallery for displaying alleged objectionable paintings made by M F Hussain.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sumit Dass reserved order after hearing the arguments for revisionist and respondent. The court has reserved order for judgement on May 5. This revision has been filed against a magistrate court order wherein the direction for registration of FIR was denied.
Advocate Amita Sachdeva is the complainant in this matter. During earlier arguments, advocate Makarand D Adkar, counsel for the Complainant, argued that in the objectionable paintings, our god has been shown holding a nude woman. Our god has been insulted.
He further argued that Husain had painted Bharat Mata in an objectionable manner. I want to say that our gods have been insulted. Please spare them.
On the other hand, it was argued by the counsel for Delhi Art Gallery (DAG) that the exhibition was there for 30 days, and nobody objected to the complaint. Her concern can't be treated as a concern of society.
The complainant Amita Sachdeva had moved the Sessions court against the order of the Magistrate court refusing registration of an FIR.
On January 23, the Patiala House Court had declined to order the registration of an FIR in response to a petition claiming that two paintings by the late artist and Padma awardee M.F. Husain offended religious sentiments.
The Magistrate court had stated that no further investigation was necessary in the matter. The Magistrate court, in its ruling, had noted that the complainant was already aware of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. Additionally, the CCTV footage from the Delhi Art Gallery and the disputed paintings had already been seized.
It had further stated that, in its considered view, no additional investigation or evidence gathering was needed at this stage, as all pertinent evidence was already in the complainant's possession and on record.
The court had further added that in the present case, all the facts and circumstances of the case are within the knowledge of the complainant. CCTV footage of Delhi Art Gallery, NVR and the paintings in question have already been seized.
In the considered opinion of this court, no further investigation and collection of evidences is required on the part of investigating agency at this stage, as all the evidences are in the possession of complainant as well as on record, and if the same is required at later stage, then Section 225 BNSS can be resorted to. In the present facts and circumstances, the application u/s 175(3) of the Crpc. Stands dismissed, the court had ordered on January 23.
Earlier, the Court had reserved its decision on whether an FIR should be registered against the Delhi Art Gallery (DAG) and its Owner and director over the display of controversial paintings by renowned artist M F Husain.
The complaint stated that artwork, which depicted Hindu deities Hanuman and Ganesha holding nude female figures, sparked outrage after a formal complaint was filed by advocate Amita Sachdeva, who deemed the paintings "offensive."
The controversy began when Complainant Amita Sachdeva, practising Advocate, visited the DAG in Connaught Place on December 4, 2024, and took photographs of the disputed pieces.
Following this, she filed a complaint with the Parliament Street Police Station on December 9, 2024, after researching past FIRS lodged against Husain for similar works. However, during a subsequent visit on December 10, 2024, with the investigating officer, the paintings were mysteriously removed, and gallery officials claimed that they had never been on display.
In response to Sachdeva's petition, Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Sahil Monga reviewed the Action Taken Report (ATR) from the police, which included CCTV footage and a list of artworks provided by the gallery. The court noted that the report confirmed that the disputed paintings were listed under Serial Nos. 6 and 10 in the gallery's inventory.
Judge Monga then issued an order for the paintings to be seized, directing the investigating officer to file a report on the seizure by January 22, 2025. (ANI)