(Per M. S. Sonak, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Ryan Menezes, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S. G. Bhobe, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State (Respondent nos. 1 and 2), and Mr. Kaif Noorani, learned Counsel for Respondent no.3. Rule. At the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. The Petitioner claims to be an artist, musician, and singer primarily engaged as a tiatrist or a stage singer in the popular form of musical theatre known as Tiatr. He claims to have participated in about 10-12 such musical productions since 2015 under the stage name of Alison De Curtorim.

3. By this Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Cr.P.C.), the Petitioner seeks to quash of complaint/FIR bearing Cr. No. 22/2021 of Quepem Police Station, alleging the commission of offenses punishable under Section 295-A and Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). This complaint/FIR is based on the complaint dated 06.06.2021 made by Respondent no.3, who is a Member of the Legislative Assembly representing the Cuncolim Constituency.

4. Mr. Menezes, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that even if the allegations made in the complaint of Respondent no.3 are taken at their face value, none of the ingredients of Section 295-A of IPC are made out or attracted. He submits that in the absence of essential predicates of any cognizable offense having been set out, the very registration of FIR is an exercise in excess of power and amounts to the abuse of the criminal process. He submits there is nothing even remotely stated in the complaint or for that matter in the song composed and presented by the Petitioner to attract the provisions of Section 295-A of IPC. He submits that no offense punishable under Section 500 of IPC has also been made out and, in any case, the offense under Section 499 of IPC punishable under Section 500 of IPC is only a non-cognizable offense for which no FIR could have been registered in terms of Section 154 of Cr.P.C.

5. Mr. Menezes submits that it is only because Respondent no.3 is an MLA, that Respondent nos. 1 and 2 proceeded to register an FIR against the Petitioner even though the complaint and the song on which the complaint is based do not even remotely attract the predicates of Section 295-A of IPC. He submits that the very registration of such an FIR and undertaking of investigations under the same amounts to abuse of the criminal process and, therefore, the impugned complaint/FIR deserves to be quashed. He relies on Ramji Lal Modi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1957 SC 620 [LQ/SC/1957/36] ; 1957 DGLS (SC) 33 Manzar Sayeed Khan vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2007) 5 SCC 1 [LQ/SC/2007/463] Maqbool Fida Husain vs. Rajkumar Pandey & Ors. 2008 SCC Online Del 562 , Vineet Kacker vs. State of Maharashtra 2017 All MR (Cri) 4309 , Mahendra Singh Dhoni vs. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar & Anr. 2017 All SCR (Cri) 1050 , Priya Prakash Varrier & Others vs. State of Telangana & anr. 2018 All SCR (Cri) 1796 , Pawan Kamalakar Deshpande & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2019 All MR (Cri) 2536 , Indibily Creative Private Limited & Ors. vs. Government of West Bengal & Ors. (2020) 12 SCC 436 , [LQ/SC/2019/688] Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2020 SCC Online Bom 732 , Sudhir Rikhari vs. State of Goa & Ors. (Judgment dated 09.04.2021 in Criminal Writ Petition no. 71/2020) Criminal Writ Petition No. 71/2020 , State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , Inter Mohan Goswami & anr. vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. (2007) 12 SCC 1 [LQ/SC/2007/1225] and Anand Kumar Mohatta & Anr. vs. State 2019(11) SCC 706 , in support of his contentions.

6. Mr. Bhobe, the learned Public Prosecutor for the StateRespondent nos. 1 and 2, leaves the matter for the decision of this Court. He also fairly points out the decision of this Court in Sudhir Rikhari vs. State of Goa & Ors. (WPCR no. 71 of 2020) decided on 09.04.2021, where a complaint/FIR under Section 295-A of IPC against some musicians/singers was quashed by this Court.

7. Mr. Kaif Noorani, learned Counsel for Respondent no.3, with his forensic skill submitted that the investigations are at the nascent stage and, therefore, the FIR/complaint may not be quashed. He submitted that the complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offense under Section 295-A of IPC, which was not the case in Sudhir Rikhari (supra) and other connected matters. He submits that after the Petitioner's performance was posted on YouTube, Respondent no.3 received complaints from several members of the Christian community who stated that the actions of the Petitioner in the song had insulted their religion and hurt and outraged their feelings. He submits that the Petitioner's actions were with the deliberate and malicious intentions of hurting and outraging the religious feelings of the Christian community in the State of Goa as well as internationally. He, therefore, submits that this Petition may be dismissed, particularly since the same is quite premature.

8. Mr. Noorani, the learned Counsel, referred to Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 , to submit that quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. He submitted that FIR is not meant to be an encyclopedia and the police must be permitted to complete the investigations. He submitted that, at this stage, the Court must not consider the merits or even the genuineness of the allegations. He submits that as long as the FIR discloses the commission of a cognizable offense, the Court has to permit the Investigating Agency/Police to investigate the allegations in the FIR. For all these reasons, Mr. Noorani submits that this Petition may be dismissed.

9. The rival contentions now fall for our determination.

10. The impugned FIR, in this case, is based on the complaint dated 06.06.2021 (Exhibit 'B' – page 19), which is transcribed in its entirety below for the convenience of reference :

“From : Clafasio Dias,

House No.151,

Agramod, Paroda,

Salcete, Goa.

Date : 06-06-2021

To,

The Police Inspector,

Quepem Police Station,

Quepem, Goa.

Subject : Complaint under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against Shri Alison Gomes, alias Alison De Curtorim, son of Franky Gomes, Resident of Sandues Batti, Curtorim, Salcete, Goa.

Sir,

I the undersigned am constrained to lodge this Criminal Complaint against Shri Alison Gomes, alias Alison De Curtorim, son of Franky Gomes, Resident of Sandues Batti, Curtorim, Salcete, Goa, who has composed and sung a song title 'Dongi MLA' and has published the same on Youtube on 05/06/2021, where in the said person with deliberate and malicious intention of hurting and outraging the religious feelings of Christian Community of Cuncolim, Chandor, Quepem and in the State of Goa at large and also Christian Indian Citizens internationally, has falsely alleged that while standing outside the Holy Church known as 'Nossa senhora de belem' at Chandor that I used to break the Holy Crosses at night and construct the same in the morning and gain sympathy of people. Thereafter the said person has further falsely alleged at meetings I used to in the name of mother 'bobke fodtalo'. Thereafter, the said persons has further falsely claim that I swore while standing in front of the Church that I shall never leave the Congress and join the BJP. The said song sung and composed by the said person is available at 'https://youtu.be/kXkoN ^^pEWO'. The said false statements can be found from minute 2.04 onwards of the said song. The said false allegations apart from being defamatory are clearly done with the deliberate and malicious intention of hurting and outraging the religious feelings of the feelings of the Christian Community of Cuncolim, Chandor, Quepem and in the State of Goa at large and also Christian Indian Citizens internationally. The same is therefore clearly an offence under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code 1860 which is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both and has been classified as a Cognizable and Non-Bailable offence.

I therefore request you to register/lodge a First Information Report (FIR) against the said Alison Gomes alias Alison De Curtorim and initiate appropriate action against the said person in accordance with law.

Sd/-

Clafasio Dias”

11. The complaint dated 06.06.2021 refers to the song “Dongi MLA” and Mr. Noorani referred to some of the objectionable passages from the same. The transcript of this song (in Konkani language) is provided at Exhibit 'B' page 21 of the paper book in this Petition. A translation of this very song in English is provided on pages 22A - 22-B of the paper book. In the affidavit in reply filed by Respondent no.3, there is no challenge to the translation. No such challenge was raised by Mr. Noorani on behalf of Respondent no.3 during his arguments.

12. Since the complaint dated 06.06.2021 is based on the song or certain passages from the song “Dongi MLA”, the translation of the same is transcribed below for the convenience of reference :

“Translation of song “Dongi MLA” into English

Verse:

Empty vessel makes noise, then afterwards scratches his head. In this am exposing his true colours. In this song Dodger (hiding his true colours) Mla, I'm opening his hidden agendas. To develop the village, you were elected, but you divided the people, You were elected on a Congress ticket, On a Congress ticket you were elected, by taking money you put the suit of BJP, That you are giving lands to the migrants, Has now been found out by Goans, They are waiting to punch you on the nose.

Chorus:

Cuncolim MLA is a big crook and He has spoiled everything, Don't pretend to be a saint, People know of your illegal activities in progress, Don't think that you are saved by joining the BJP, When you were in ZP you installed a crusher, on a government plot, as I have learnt, You robbed Government Land under Survey No. 155, and I came to know, survey No 155, That is why I criticise you in this song.

Verse:

Before elections you attended people's function, And told the people how great you were, At night you demolished crosses, and rebuilt them in the day, And you gained the sympathy of the people, Then, in your meeting you took the name of Jesus and Mary, and lied, You swore in forth of the church that you will never leave the Congress and join the BJP.

Chorus:

You flash your position and speak with arrogance, because you have got crores of money, By saying that Vijay is stopping development, You have told fresh lies to the people, You were also supporting double tracking, Is what the people felt, Keep in mind, you will have to pay for you sins, You will not be elected again, You will not reach the legislative assembly, Inspite of asking for votes like a better with a coconut shell.

Verse:

Recently a girl caught video footage, And she exposed you completely, On seeing the video you got fever, That girl brought out the bitter truth, That you are big thief, If you remove peacock's feathers and put it on a crow, that crow will never become peacock.

Chorus:

You are robbing trucks and selling them, You are supporting migrants, Tell me, what should be done to a crook like this, Despite the ban by the Court, you tied leaves on the people's eyes, You have destroyed the hills of Paroda by cutting them, You are supporting the migrants, By building huts for them, From this we gather, you have more love for migrants. If you die with the curses of the people, There is no need to put you in the coffin, You can be laid to rest in the clothes of the lamanis.”

Emphasis supplied

13. The complaint dated 06.06.2021 alleges that the Petitioner by composing, singing, and presenting the song “Dongi MLA” on YouTube, has deliberately and maliciously hurt and outraged the religious feelings of the Christian Community of Cuncolim, Chandor, Quepem, and of those in the State of Goa at large and also the Christian Indians Citizens Internationally. The rest of the allegations in the complaint are that the statements in the song are false statements and defamatory statements made with deliberate and malicious intentions of hurting and outraging the religious feelings of the Christian Community as aforesaid.

14. During the arguments, special reference was made to the third paragraph or the second verse, which refers to the Respondent no.3, demolishing Crosses at night and rebuilding them in the day to gain the sympathy of the people; and Respondent no.3 invoking the name of Jesus and Mary and lying, and the Respondent no.3 swearing-in the Church that he will never leave the Congress and join the BJP. Based on this particular verse, it was alleged that the ingredients of an offense under Section 295-A of IPC have been made out and, therefore, there was no abuse involved in the registration of the FIR under Section 295-A of the IPC.

15. Section 295-A of the IPC reads as follows :

“Section 295-A of the IPC reads as follows:- [295A. Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.— Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of [citizens of India], [by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise], insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to [three years], or with fine, or with both.]”

16. In Ramji Lal Modi (supra), the constitutional validity of section 295-A was no doubt upheld by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. But in so upholding the constitutional validity, the Constitution Bench made it clear that section 295-A of IPC does not penalize any and every act of insult or attempt to insult the religion or religious beliefs of a class of citizens but it penalizes only those acts of insults to or those varieties of attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of a class of citizens, which are perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class. Insults to religion offered unwittingly or carelessly or without any deliberate or malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of that class do not come within the section. It only punishes the aggravated form of insult to religion when it is perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class. In other words, the language employed in the section is not wide enough to cover restrictions both within and without the limits of constitutionally permissible legislative action affecting the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

17. In Mahendra Singh Dhoni (supra), the allegation against the cricketer was that he posed for a magazine photograph/painting with the caption “God of Big Deals”. There was a description underneath which had the characters of some advertisements. A complaint was filed alleging offense under section 295-A of IPC but the Police authorities declined to register the FIR. The complainant, therefore, filed a complaint under section 200 of the Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate who issued the process to the cricketer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the process by referring to the decision of the Constitution Bench in Ramji Lal Modi (supra). In paragraph 7, this is what the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:-

“7. On a perusal of the aforesaid passages, it is clear as crystal that Section 295A does not stipulate everything to be penalised and any and every act would tantamount to insult or attempt to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of class of citizens. It penalise only those acts of insults to or those varieties of attempts to insult the religion or religious belief of a class of citizens which are perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class of citizens. Insults to religion offered unwittingly or carelessly or without any deliberate or malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of that class do not come within the Section. The Constitution Bench has further clarified that the said provision only punishes the aggravated form of insult to religion when it is perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class. Emphasis has been laid on the calculated tendency of the said aggravated form of insult and also to disrupt the public order to invite the penalty.”

18. In Mahendra Singh Dhoni (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, before parting with the case, sounded a word of caution that the Magistrates who have been conferred with the power of taking cognizance and issuing summons are required to carefully scrutinize whether the allegations made in the complaint proceeding meet the basic ingredients of the offense and the accused is really required to be summoned. This has to be treated as the primary judicial responsibility of the court issuing process.

19. Even though the aforesaid observations were made in the context of Magistrates issuing summons in such matters, the observations will equally apply to police authorities registering FIRs based on complaints that do not even meet with the basic ingredients of Section 295-A of IPC without the proper scrutiny of the allegations in the complaint and the provisions of Section 295A of IPC.

20. In Maqbool Fida Husain (supra) the Petitioner was charged with obscenity and hurting religious sentiments for his painting which depicted India as a nude woman with her hair flowing in the form of Himalayas. Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J (as His Lordship then was), upheld the artistic freedom of the painter, noting thus:

“112. … Pluralism is the soul of democracy. The right to dissent is the hallmark of a democracy. In real democracy the dissenter must feel at home and ought not to be nervously looking over his shoulder fearing captivity or bodily harm or economic and social sanctions for his unconventional or critical views. There should be freedom for the thought we hate. Freedom of speech has no meaning if there is no freedom after speech. The reality of democracy is to be measured by the extent of freedom and accommodation it extends.”

21. In S. Tamilselvan vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 5960 , the Division Bench of the Madras High Court speaking again through Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J (as His Lordship then was) did not approve the action of the State officials in succumbing to the demands of extra-judicial elements and forcing the author to withdraw unsold copies of the book and to tender an apology. The Division Bench, after quoting the decision in Maqbool Fida Husain (supra), held that there was a requirement of positive measures of protection to be taken to protect free speech permissible under the law. The Division Bench made the following observations:-

“180. … In such simmering circumstances, it was the bounden duty of the State Government to ensure that the law and order situation does not go out of hand, but that ought not be achieved by placating anyone who seeks to take the law and order in his own hand at the cost of the person who has peacefully expressed his/her view. …and the authorities really were not neutral in the episode, but were possibly more concerned with the law and order scenario, as opposed to the freedom of expression of a single individual.

181. ... We may also say that the State and the police authorities would not be the best ones to judge such literary and cultural issues, which are best left to the wisdom of the specialists in the field and thereafter, if need be, the Courts.”

22. The decisions in Maqbool Fida Husain (supra) and S. Tamilselvan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) were quoted with approval by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indibly Creative Private Limited (supra) relied upon by Mr. Menezes.

23. Now if the complaint dated 06.06.2021 and the song “Dongi MLA” are considered in the context of the aforesaid principles set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other Hon'ble High Courts while dealing with allegations of an offense under Section 295-A of IPC then, we are quite satisfied that even if all the allegations in the complaint/FIR are taken at their face value, they do not disclose the commission of an offense under Section 295-A of IPC. The mere incantation of the expressions like hurting and outraging religious feelings of the Christian Community with deliberate and malicious intentions does not spell out the ingredients of Section 295-A of IPC. Besides, there is nothing in the song “Dongi MLA” or the verse on which emphasis was laid to attract the ingredients of Section 295-A of IPC.

24. The song “Dongi MLA” or the passage which was emphasized upon by Mr. Noorani, simply alleges that Respondent no.3 demolished Crosses at night and rebuilt them in the day to gain the sympathy of the people; that the Respondent no.3 in his meetings took the name of Jesus and Mary, but lied; that the Respondent no.3 swore in the Church that he will never leave the Congress and join BJP. Now even if all these allegations are accepted at their face value, they do not even remotely point out the ingredients of Section 295-A of IPC.

25. The aforesaid allegations do not insult or attempt to insult the religion or religious beliefs of the Christians as alleged. In fact, none of the statements are even remotely concerned with Christianity or Christian beliefs. The allegations, at the highest, may relate to Respondent no.3 allegedly undertaking some activities or committing some acts contrary to his religious beliefs. There is nothing in the allegations, even remotely suggestive of any intent of outraging religious feelings of any class of citizens of India. The alleged outraging of any feelings of Respondent no.3 or the alleged insults or attempts to insult Respondent no.3 is not the same thing as outraging the religious feelings of the Christians in general or insulting or attempting to insult the Christian religion or the Christian religious beliefs, in particular. The essential predicates to constitute an offense under Section 295A of IPC are simply missing in the impugned FIR/ Complaint.

26. Therefore, based on the allegations in the complaint, which, in turn, are based on the composition and presentation of the song “Dongi MLA”, the police authorities exceeded their jurisdiction in registering an FIR under Section 295-A of IPC against the Petitioner. This is a case where the allegations made in the FIR and the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not, prima facie, constitute any offense under Section 295-A of IPC against the Petitioner. This is also a case where the allegations in the FIR/complaint and the song “Dongi MLA” on which the complaint is based, do not disclose a cognizable offense justifying an investigation by the Police Officer under Section 156(1) of the Cr.P.C.

27. In Bhajan Lal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety, do not even prima facie constitute any offense or make out any case against the accused or where the allegations in the FIR and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offense, justifying an investigation by Police Officers under Section 156(1) of Cr.P.C. or where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offense but constitute only a non-cognizable offense, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of the Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of Cr.P.C.; then, in such circumstances, the High Court in the exercise of its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of Cr.P.C., can quash the FIR either to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. Therefore, applying these principles, the impugned FIR/complaint, in this case, deserves to be quashed to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.

28. In circumstances, quite similar to the present case, the Division Bench of this Court in Sudhir Rikhari (supra) and connected Petitions, quashed the FIR/complaint against the members of an art-rock live performance Band known as “Dastaan LIVE”. The allegation against the members of this band was that the song “Mantra Kavita” composed by Sahitya Akademy Award winner Shri Vaidyanath Misra in the year 1969 and performed by them, had outraged the religious feelings of the Hindus or insulted or attempted to insult the Hindu religion or Hindu religious beliefs. The complainant in the said case, a practicing Advocate, had alleged that the composition and its presentation involved abusing people chanting the OM and calling the followers of the Hindu stream “Ullu ke patta”. The complainant had also alleged that such presentation amounts to blasphemy of his religion and had hurt the sentiments of hundred crores of Indians and a few million abroad. This Court, while quashing the FIR, held that the police authorities ought not to rush to register such FIR without going through the complaint or for that matter the provisions of Section 295-A of IPC. This Court observed that the police authorities must be quite sensitive in such matters because what is at stake is the freedom of Speech and expression itself.

29. As noted earlier, in Ramji Lal Modi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it clear that Section 295-A of IPC is not attracted in case of every act of insult or attempt to insult the religion or religious beliefs of a class of citizens but this Section only penalizes those acts of insults to or to those varieties of attempts to insult the religions or religious beliefs of a class of religions which are perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class. The insult of religion offered unwittingly or carelessly or without any deliberate or malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of that class do not come within the scope of Section 295-A of IPC. This Section only punishes the aggravated form of insult to religion when it is perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class.

30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, specifically observed that Section 295-A is not wide enough to cover restrictions both within and without the limitation of constitutionally permissible legislative action affecting the fundamentals rights to Article 19- (a) of the Constitution. The Police authorities in the present case appear to have taken no cognizance whatsoever of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramji lal Modi (supra) or for that matter, several other decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts explaining the scope of Section 295-A of IPC.

31. Besides, this is a matter where the complainant has attempted to rely on a particular passage or rather, refer to a sentence here and a sentence there to allege that the Petitioner has committed an offense punishable under Section 295-A of IPC. This is also not permissible as was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manzar Sayeed Khan (supra). In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also referred to its earlier decision and held that the effect of words must be judged from the standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous men, and not those of weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point of view. Again, we feel that all these settled principles which apply in the context of an offense under Section 295-A of IPC have been completely ignored by the police authorities at the time of registering the impugned FIR against the Petitioner. Applying the principles in Bhajan Lal & Ors. (supra) a case has therefore been made to quash the FIR/complaint in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

32. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) relied upon by Mr. Noorani, undoubtedly, reiterates, that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection and not as a rule but rather as an exception to the ordinary rule. This judgment also holds that at the stage of quashing, the Court must not concern itself with the genuineness or otherwise of the allegations in the FIR/complaint. These principles have been culled out by specific reference to Bhajan Lal (supra). However, in this case, we find that even if all the allegations in the FIR/complaint are taken at their face value, they do not disclose the commission of a cognizable offense.

33. Further, in this case, and at this stage, we have accepted the allegations, as genuine and refrained from considering whether the allegations are genuine or otherwise. Even then the allegations do not disclose the commission of a cognizable offense under Section 295-A of IPC. In such circumstances, permitting the police authorities to investigate further would amount to an abuse of the criminal process. Therefore, according to us, well within the predicates of Bhajan Lal (supra) and Neeharika (supra), a case has been made out for quashing the impugned FIR/complaint insofar as it relates to the allegation of the offense under Section 295-A of IPC.

34. However, Mr. Noorani, is quite right in his without prejudice submission that the complaint at least prima facie discloses the ingredients of the offense punishable under Section 500 of IPC. But based on this, the FIR/complaint cannot be saved because unless the FIR/complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offense and not only a non-cognizable offense, the police authorities get no jurisdiction to register an FIR or to undertake investigations without the order of a Magistrate as is contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. This is what is precisely held in Bhajan Lal (supra). There is no dispute whatsoever that the offense of defamation punishable under Section 500 of IPC is non-cognizable in terms of Schedule -I to Cr.P.C. Therefore, though we are quashing the impugned FIR/complaint, we make it clear that it will be open to Respondent no.3 to take out appropriate proceedings in the context of his allegations against the Petitioner involving the offense punishable under Section 500 of IPC.

35. For all the aforesaid reasons, we allow this Petition and quash and set aside the impugned complaint/FIR bearing Cr. No. 22/2021 of Quepem Police Station upon complaint dated 06.06.2021 made by Respondent no. 3 along with an investigation in respect thereof and with all legal consequences and effects. However, we once again clarify that such quashing will not affect the right of Respondent no.3 to take out appropriate proceedings in the context of his allegations involving the offense punishable under Section 500 of IPC.

36. The observations in this Judgment and Order are in the context of the plea for quashing of the impugned FIR/complaint and, therefore, none of the observations herein are intended to affect or influence the civil proceedings already instituted by Respondent No. 3 alleging defamation by the Petitioner or the criminal proceedings which the Respondent no.3 might take up against the petitioner alleging commission of an offense punishable under Section 500 of IPC. Such proceedings will have to be decided on their own merits and in accord with the law.

37. The rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order for costs.

38. At this stage, Mr. Noorani, learned Counsel for Respondent no.3, seeks a stay on the Judgment and order that we have now made.

39. According to us, no such stay can be granted in the facts of the present case because otherwise, the police authorities might insist on proceeding with the investigations against a 22-year-old stage artist even though, the impugned FIR/complaint had not disclosed any of the ingredients of the offense under Section 295- A of the IPC. Accordingly, the prayer for stay is declined.

40. The issue of the certified copy is expedited.