The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed an FIR registered against the director, actor and producer of ‘Yaarian 2’ under Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code over the portrayal of a non-Amritdhari Sikh actor wearing a “Sri Sahib” (kirpan) in a song.The Bench held that the depiction could not be termed an insult to the Sikh religion. Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal asserted that the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, did not constitute an offence under Section 295-A IPC.The FIR was registered on August 30, 2023, at Division 4 police station, Jalandhar police commissionerate on the complaint of a person, who alleged that T-Series company had released a song from ‘Yaarian 2’ on YouTube in which a clean-shaven artist, Neezaan Jafri, was wearing ‘Sri Sahib’ contrary to Sikh customs.The complainant alleged that Sri Sahib was one of the “Five Kakars” of the Sikh religion. As per Sikh customs, a person was required to be Amritdhari to wear it.“The song was filmed by director Radhika Rao and Vinay Sapru deliberately to hurt Sikh sentiments. The producer, Bhushan Kumar, was also responsible,” it was alleged.Rao and other petitioners submitted that FIR dated August 31, 2023, registered at Division E police station, Amritsar Police Commissionerate under Section 295-A of the IPC concerned the same incident and was based on identical allegations. The present FIR on the same allegations was, as such, not sustainable.Opposing the plea for quashing, the State contended that the depiction of a clean-shaven actor wearing ‘Sri Sahib’ around his neck, without wearing a turban, against Sikh customs, had hurt the religious feelings of the complainant and members of the Sikh community.It argued that the petitioners, being the director, producer and actor of the film, were responsible for creating the song and that the FIR could not be quashed while investigation was pending.What Section 295-A requiresThe Court noted that Section 295-A IPC criminalises “deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs”.Referring to the provision, Justice Nagpal deduced three ingredients: the accused must insult or attempt to insult the religion or religious beliefs of a class of citizens; the insult must be accompanied by a deliberate and malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of that class; and the insult must be by words, spoken or written, signs, visible representation or otherwise.Depiction did not amount to an insultExamining the FIR in the light of Section 295-A and binding judicial precedents, the Court rejected the allegation that the portrayal itself constituted an offence.“The act attributed to the petitioners i.e. picturization of a song showing a non-Amritdhari Sikh wearing a ‘Sri Sahib/Kirpan’ cannot be termed as an insult to the Sikh religion,” Justice Nagpal asserted.The Court treated the portrayal in the context of artistic expression.“The song picturized in a movie is an expression of creative liberty, artistic instinct and the inadvertent portrayal of Sri Sikh Sahib, one of the five religious ‘Kakaars’ of the Sikh religion, cannot be construed as a deliberate, malicious act intended to hurt the religious feelings of the complainant or other members of the religious community. The act attributed cannot be regarded by an ordinary prudent mind as grossly offensive or provocative,” the Court observed.The Court also distinguished an individual grievance from the sentiments of an entire community by observing: “A grievance expressed by an individual belonging to Sikh community cannot portray the sentiments of the entire community. Mens rea which is an essential element in the criminal offence is found lacking and the act complained of is clearly outside the purview of Section 295-A IPC.”Apology and removal of visualsThe Court also took note of the subsequent steps taken by the petitioners. The order recorded: “The petitioners have already issued an apology that they had no intention to hurt any religious sentiments and had removed the objectionable visuals/scenes from the film which may hurt the sentiments of complainant and/or members of Sikh community.”Referring to the aspect of two FIRs, Justice Nagpal added undoubtedly there could not be a second FIR for the same offence. But FIR regarding which another petition was instituted, was subsequent one registered on August 31, 2025, while the FIR in the present case was registered on August 30, 2023, prior in time.“Therefore, the argument that the police could not investigate the case with regard to same offence is not available to the petitioner”The Court, at the same time, held that the case fell within the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court.Allowing the petition, the Court quashed the FIR dated August 30, 2023, “and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom” qua the petitioners.