HC stays proceedings against actor Rajkummar Rao in 2017 FIR over film 'Behen Hogi Teri'

CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed trial court proceedings against actor Rajkummar Rao in connection with a 2017 FIR that accused him and others of hurting religious sentiments through the film “Behen Hogi Teri”.

The bench of Justice Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor passed these orders while hearing a petition filed by Rao seeking quashing of FIR No. 74 dated April 19, 2017, registered at Police Station Division No. 5, Jalandhar. The FIR, lodged by complainant Ishant Sharma, alleged that the film depicted Lord Shiva in a “cartoonist and disrespectful manner,” thereby offending the religious sentiments of Hindus. Rao played the role of Lord Shiva in
a cartoonist manner which is objectionable and disrespectful to Lord Shiva and will hurt the religious sentiments of followers of Hindu Religion, particularly followers of Lord Shiva.



The actor, represented by Senior Advocate Puneet Bali and Tejeshwar Singh, argued that the allegations were baseless and amounted to an abuse of process. Counsel emphasized that the film had been duly certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), a statutory body mandated under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, to review and clear content for public exhibition. The CBFC, after thorough scrutiny, had found no objectionable material in the scenes depicting Rao dressed as Lord Shiva or riding a motorcycle.

It was further contended that the portrayal fell within the ambit of artistic expression and was protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. It was also argued that criminal prosecution cannot be sustained merely on subjective reactions when a competent authority like CBFC has already cleared the film.

On the other hand, the State of Punjab opposed the petition. The prosecution argued that the film’s depiction of Lord Shiva in a comic manner had “undeniably hurt the sentiments of a vast section of the Hindu community” and attracted provisions of Section 295-A IPC (deliberate acts to outrage religious feelings), Section 120-B IPC (criminal conspiracy), and Section 67 of the IT Act. While acknowledging filmmakers’ right to freedom of expression, the State emphasized that such freedom was subject to reasonable restrictions.

After hearing all the parties, the HC stayed further proceedings before the trial court and adjourned the matter to December 10 for further hearing.