Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan has dismissed a petition seeking registration of an FIR under Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in relation to paintings displayed at a Delhi Art Gallery alleged to offend religious sentiments. The Court held that no cognizable offence was disclosed, as the paintings, CCTV footage, and other materials were already seized and available before the trial court, making further police investigation unnecessary. It directed that the matter proceed as a complaint case under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with trial scrutiny to follow .

The matter concerned paintings displayed in a Delhi Art Gallery which, according to the petitioner, were offensive to religious sentiments. The petitioner approached the police authorities with a request for registration of a First Information Report. The request sought action under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, specifically invoking Section 299.

Also Read: Supreme Court Approves New Pharmacy Council Schedule, Alters Approval and Admission Deadlines for Pharma Courses

The petitioner’s case was that the artworks amounted to an offence under the said provision. It was contended that failure to register an FIR amounted to a breach of the mandatory obligation under Section 154 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which requires the police to act upon information disclosing a cognizable offence. The petitioner sought directions to the police for investigation and prosecution.

The State respondents opposed the petition. They contended that all relevant evidence, including the paintings and CCTV footage from the gallery, had already been seized and placed before the competent trial court. It was argued that once materials were before the court, there was no occasion for fresh registration of an FIR or a new investigation by the police. According to the State, the matter ought to proceed as a private complaint in accordance with law.

The nature of the dispute thus lay in whether the facts warranted registration of a cognizable offence through a police FIR or whether the proceedings could be taken forward by the trial court as a complaint case.

The evidence considered comprised the paintings alleged to be objectionable, along with CCTV footage and other records already in custody. These materials were available before the trial court for judicial scrutiny.

The statutory provisions referred to in the case were Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, dealing with the alleged offence, and Section 154 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the duty of police officers to register FIRs.

The Court observed: “The issue in the present petition is whether the FIR should be directed to be registered for the alleged offences under Section 299 of the BNS, 2023.”

In examining the scope of Section 154 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Court stated: “The requirement of registration of FIR arises only in cases where a cognizable offence is disclosed and police investigation is necessary for collection of evidence.” It further recorded: “In the present case, all the material is already available before the Trial Court and there is no requirement for police investigation.”

The Court addressed the petitioner’s assertion that non-registration of an FIR constituted a failure of the police to perform its duty. On this, it observed: “The grievance of the petitioner is that the police has not registered an FIR despite a complaint being filed.” The Court, however, clarified the procedural position: “Once the Trial Court is seized of the matter and has the evidence before it, the question of directing the registration of FIR for the same allegations does not arise.”

On the evidentiary record, the Court stated: “The paintings and the CCTV footage have already been seized and the same are before the Trial Court.” It added: “The Trial Court is competent to consider the said evidence and determine whether any offence is made out.”

Also Read: Boat v Boult | Delhi High Court Finds Visual & Phonetic Similarity Sufficient for Passing Off | Upholds Injunction on Logos and ‘Boult’ Mark, Lifts Ban on ‘Unplug Yourself’, Allows ‘GOBOULT’

The Court ultimately recorded that directing the police to act further was unnecessary in view of the materials already placed before the competent forum. It concluded its reasoning by stating: “The proper course would be to proceed with the matter as a complaint case.”

It stated: “No direction can be issued for registration of an FIR in the facts of the present case.”

“The Trial Court shall proceed to consider the evidence already seized and take a decision in accordance with law.”

“There is no merit in the petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Makarand D. Adkar, Mr. Vikram Kumar, Mr. Yadavendra Saxena, Mr. Mayank Dwivedi, Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Advocates with the petitioner in person

For the Respondents: Mr. Raj Kumar, APP for the State with SI Sudeep; Mr. Madhav Khurrana, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shivam Batra, Mr. Rony John, Mr. Piyush Swami, Mr. Teeksh, and Mr. Ibrahim, Advocates

Case Title: Amita Sachdeva v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case Number: CRL.M.C. 6388/2025

Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan