Holding

An FIR under sections 153, 153A and 34 IPC must disclose a clear intent to promote enmity; absent such mens rea, the FIR is liable to be quashed.

Summary

The Oxford University Press India published a scholarly book titled “Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India” which contained a paragraph that offended certain historians, leading to a mob attack on a scholar and the destruction of manuscripts. The State of Maharashtra registered an FIR against the author, publisher and printer under IPC sections 153, 153A and 34. The publisher and printer sought a writ to quash the FIR, arguing that the book was a scholarly work without intent to incite hatred and that the FIR did not disclose an offence. The Supreme Court held that for an offence under section 153A the prosecution must prove a mens rea to promote enmity, which was absent as the book must be read as a whole and no intent to disturb public tranquility was shown. Consequently, the Court ruled that the FIR could be quashed and the respondents could not be proceeded against under the cited sections. Both appeals were disposed of, effectively dismissing the charges.

Issues considered

The FIR under sections 153, 153A and 34 IPC discloses a cognizable offence against the publisher, printer and author.
Whether the paragraph in the book shows the requisite mens rea to attract liability under section 153A IPC.
Whether an FIR can be quashed when it fails to disclose an offence under the IPC.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 153, s. 153A, s. 34, s. 43

Subjects

Section 153Apublic orderfreedom of expressionpublicationFIR quashingmens reaintentbook controversyIndian Penal Codecensorship

Judgment

-<
/

MANZAR SAYEED KHAN ·A
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

APRIL 05, 2007

[K.G. BALAKRISHN.AN CJ., LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA AND B
D.K. JAIN, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860-ss. 153, 153A and 34-Publication of a book-Due
to some objectionable portion thereof, public unrest-FIR against the author,
publisher and printer-Writ Petition seeking quashing of FIR-Stay of C
.investigation-Pursuit for compromise-Compromise having failed, vacation
of stay order ordering further investigation-On appeal, held: In the facts of
the case, the act of the author, publisher and printer would not attract penal
consequences under the provisions-The intention to cause disorder or incite
the people to violence is the sine qua nonfor the offence uls 153A-The book D
was purely a scholarly pursuit-An FIR can be quashed if it does not disclose
an offence-FIR-Quashing of

The Oxford University Press India entered into an agreement with
Oxford University Press, USA for publishing in India a paper bound book
entitled "Shivaji" Hindu King in Islamic India" authored by a Professor of E
Religious studies. The book was published and some copies of the same were
also sold. The Oxford University Press, India and the appellant (Managing

-
Director of the Press) received letter from historians asking the publisher
and the author to retract objectionable statement complained of and tender an
apology. The Oxford University Press, India through the appellant expressed
regrets and informed that instructions had been issued to all its offices in F
India to immediately withdraw all copies of the book from circulation.
Thereafter, a mob at Pune blackened the face of Sanskrit Scholar, whose name
had appeared in the acknowledgement of the book, having helped the author.
The author sent a fax apologizing for the mistake and stated that it was he
and not the publisher, who was responsible. A mob also destroyed a huge G
number of rare manuscripts of Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute
(BORI). The author in an Interview expressed deep anguish at the destruction
of books and manuscripts and explained the reason for writing the book.
,-

907 H
't.·
908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

A Respondent registered an FIR against the author and the appellants
'--
herein (the Publisher and Printer) u/ss 153, 153A and 34 IPC. Thereafter,
Public Interest Litigation was filed in High Court demanding action for
extradition of the author and for coercive action against the publisher.
Appellant-Publisher moved application for grant of anticipatory bail, wherein
High Court granted him time to approach concerned court for appropriate
B relief.

Appellant filed Writ Petitions praying for quashing the investigation ,,
in the FIR Pursuant to suggestion of compromise whereby the author would
withdraw the objectionable portion from the book, an affidavit was filed by the
author to the same effect. But the State filed an affidavit stating therein that
c the State would investigate as to whether there was an organized attempt to
destroy the social tranquility or was it a freak occurrence; and that it would
not be in the larger public interest to drop the charges. High Court vacated
the interim stay whereby further proceedings in the FIR were stayed. Hence
the present appeals.
D
Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD: I.I. The intention to cause disorder or incite the people to
violence is the sine qua non of the offence under Section 153A of IP~ and
the prosecution has to prove primafacie the existence of mens rea on the part
--
E of the accused. The intention has to bejudged primarily by the language of f'
the book and the circumstances iu which the book was written and published.
The matter complained of within the ambit of Section 153A must be read as
a whole. One cannot rely on strongly worded and isolated passages for proving
the charge nor indeed can one take a sentence here and a sentence ther:! and
connect them by a meticulous process of inferential reasoning.
F [Para 16) [916-B-C)
v-
Ramesh Chotalal Dalal v. Union ofIndia and Ors., AIR (1988) SC 775
and Bilal Ahmed Ka/oo v. State of A.P., (1997] 7 SCC 431, relied on.
1.2. The author of the book has exercised his reason and his own
G analytical skills before choosing any literature, which he intends to include
in his book. Even if the appellant-publisher and the appellant-printer or the
persons whose names are mentioned in the acknowledgement by the author,
have provided information for the purpose, including the said paragraph in
~
the book. It is important and worth observing that the author has mentioned
that the library (BORI) has been his scholarly home in India and many people
--
H
I
MANZAR SA YEED KHAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LOK.ESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.J 909

therein helped him for collecting the material. The author has given the names A
of many persons, who had helped him in one way or the other and enlightened
him about the history of the historical hero 'Shivaji'. The author has also
mentioned in the book about the International Conference on Maharashtra,
etc., which has given him a lot of material for inclusion in his book. It is very
improbable to imagine that any serious and intense scholar will attempt to B
malign the image of this glorious Institute. The author thought his work to
be worth of dedication to his mother, which was purely a scholarly pursuit,
and without any intention or motive to involve him in trouble. It is the sole
responsibility of the State to make positive efforts to resolve every possible
conflict between any of the communities, castes or religions within the State
and try every possible way to establish peace and harmony within the State C
under every and all circumstances. (Para 19] [916-H; 917-B-D]
2.1 FIR can be quashed if it does not disclose an offence and there is no
need for any investigation or recording of any statement. (Para 20] (917-E)
State of Haryana v. Chaudhary Bhajanlal, AIR (1992] SC 604, relied
on. D

- 2.2. The respondents shall not proceed against the author of the book,
for offences under Sections 153, 153A and 34 IPC being the subject matter
ofF.I.R. in question. (Para 211 (917-F)
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 491 of E
2007.
WITH

- Crl. A. No. 496 of2007.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.05.2004 of the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay in Cr!. Writ Petition No. 280 of 2004. F
Soli J. Sorabjee Sr. Adv., Kamini Jaiswal, Shomila Bakshi, Rani Mishra
and Sunita Dwivedi for the Appellant. .
G.F. Vahanvati, Sol. Gen. for India, Shekhar Naphade Sr. Adv., S.S.
Shinde, A.P. Mayee, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure and H. Baruah (for Sushma
Suri) for the Respondents. G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Manzar Sayeed Khan and Vinod Hansraj Goyal have filed these two
appeals against the common order dated 06.05.2004 of a Division Bench of H
910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 4 S.C.R.

A the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No.280 of
2004 and 370 of 2004. By the impugned order, the High Court vacated the
interim order granted on 23.02.2004 and directed the Crime Branch of the State
of Maharashtra to complete, the inyestigation in fIR ·No. I 0 of 2004 registered
at the Deccan Police Station: Pune;· ~g~i~st"the ~ppeilants ·and author of the
B book titled "Shivaji Hindu King in Islamic India" under Sections 153, 153A
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code [for short 'IPC'].

3. The brief facts in both these appeals are practically identical.

4. Manzar Sayeed Khan, appellant herein, is a constituted Attorney of
the Oxford Universit-; Press India, having been appointed on 21.06.2001 for
C a period of three years -or for so long as he is employed as the Managing .
Director of the Oxford University Press India, whiCh is a department of the .
University of Oxford, a legal entity with charitable status. It furthers the
University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship and education,
by publishing worldwide in Oxford, New York, Auckland, Bangkok, Buenos
D Aires, Cape Town, Chennai, Dar-es-Salaam, Delhi, Hong Kong, Istanbul,
Karachi, Kolkata, Kuala Lumpur, Madrid,_Melboume, Mexico City, Mumbai,·
Nairobi, Sao Paulo, Shanghai,. Taipei, Tokyo, Toronto, .etc. The O?'ford
University Press India entered into an agreement for five years with .. the
Oxford University Press, USA, for Pt1blishing in India a paper _bound book
-
entitled "Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic1ndia" authcired by Prof. Janies w:
E Laine, a Professor of Religious Studies, Macalester College, USA, on 28.05.2003.
The said book was originally published by the Oxford University Press Inc.,
USA. As per the terms of the agreement, the Oxford University Press, India
agreed to. reprint the book without any changes or deletions. In all, 803 copies

F
of the book were published, i.e., 488 copies in June and 315 copies in October
2003. The book was released in July 2003. 215 copies had been sold in July,
-
25 copies in August, 29 copies in September, 52 copies in October and 19
copies in November from the records available from the States ofMaharashtra,
Gujarat and Kamataka.

5. The Oxford University Press, lmjia and the· appellants had received
G a letter on 10.l L2003 from four Historians whereby the publisher and the
author had been asked to retract the objectionable statement complained of
and tender an apology. The Oxford University Press, India through appellant-
Manzar Sayeed Khan, expressed regrets for the said statement and informed
the objectors that instructions had been issued to all its offices in India to
H immediately withdraw all copies of the book from circulation. The copies of
MANZAR SA YEED KHAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.] 911

the letters dated I 0.11.2003 and 2 l. l l .2003 are annexed with the appeals a.nd A
marked as Annexure P-3(Colly.). It is the case of the appellants that sometime
after withdrawal of the book from circulation, the appellants learnt that a mob
at Pune had blackened the face of a Sanskrit Scholar, Shri Shashikant Bahulkar
whose name appeared in the acknowledgement of the book, having helped
the author Prof. James W. Laine, by providing him with some information
during his visit to Pune. This incident was widely reported in the press. Prof. B
James W. Laine was pained by the unforeseen incident. On 28.12.200j, he sent
a fax apologizing for the mistake, if any, committed in writing the passage and
further stated that he only was responsible for the said statement written in
the book, and the publisher was not at all responsible for the same. On
05.01.2004, a mob of 100 to 125 persons allegedly belonging to the Shambhaji C
Brigade ransacked the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (BORI), Pune,
and destroyed 18,000 books and 30,000 rare manuscripts. This incident was
also widely reported in the press.

6. Prof. James W. Laine had given an interview to the 'Mid-Day'
(Newspaper) on 07.01.2004 and had explained the reason for writing the book D
and expressed deep anguish at the destruction of books and rare manuscripts
in BORI, Pune. Four days after the alleged incident, the State of Maharashtra,
respondent herein, registered a First Information Report No. l 0 of 2004 at the
Deccan Police Station, Pune, on 09.01.2004 againstthe author Prof. James W.
Laine and the appellants herein - the publisher and the printer of the book, E
under sections 153, 153A and 34 of the IPC. During the course of the
investigation of the case, a Senior Police Inspector, Deccan Police Station,
Pune, sent a communication dated 12.01.2004 [Annexure P-6(Colly.)] to the
Manager, Oxford University Press, Vijaynagar, Pune with a copy endorsed to
Managing Director, Oxford University Press, New Delhi asking for a copy of
the book since no copy of the book was available in the market. In response F
to the said letter, the Manager, Oxford University Press, Pune vide letter dated
14.01.2004 (Annexure P-6) had sent one copy of the book to the Senior Police
Inspector, Deccan Police Station, Pune. Thereafter, the Maratha Vikas Sangh
filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Bombay High Court demanding
action to be taken for extradition of Prof. James W. Laine and some coercive G
action against the publisher etc., of the book. A team of Policemen had
arrested Vinod Hansraj Goyal, appellant, a partner of the Rashtriya Printing

- Press, Shahdara, Delhi, for having printed the book. He was granted 6 days
transit remand by Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 35, Shahdara, Delhi
(now Karkardoma Court). When the appellant-Manzar Sayeed Khan came to
kno~ about the arrest ofVinod Hansraj Goyal, he filed an application for grant H
912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

A of an anticipatory bail in the High Court of Judicature, a~ Bombay. On 03.02.2004,
the High Court granted 2 weeks' time to the appellant to approach the
concerned court for appropriate relief.

7. Both the appellants filed separate Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 280 of
2004 and 370 of2004 in the High Court of Judicature, at Bombay, praying inter
B alia for quashing the investigation in FIR No. I 0 of 2004 lodged at the Deccan
Police Station, Pune, and summoning of the records and proceedings before
the Court of Magistrate and quashing the same.

8. The High Court issued a notice to the State of Maharashtra on
C 14.02.2004 and the matter was adjourned to 23.02.2004 directing the State not
to arrest the appellant Manzar Sayeed Khan. On 23.02.2004, no reply was filed
by the State and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, a Division
Bench of the High Court was pleased to issue rule returnable within 4 weeks
and stayed all the proceedings in FIR No. 10/2004 till then. The matter was
listed on 23.03.2004 and on that date, the State of Maharashtra had filed an
D affidavit in reply. The writ petitions were taken up for arguments on 07.04.2004
and 08.04.2004 and later on adjourned to 14.04.2004. It appears from the record
that the writ petitions were heard on 15.04.2004 and 16.04.2004 when it was
felt by the learned Judges that it would be better to settle the controversy
finally at that stage expeditiously and in the interest of the State to put the
matter to an end instead of allowing the controversies to precipitate and,
E therefore, the publisher's counsel was requested to try and establish contact
with the author and obtain his. consent whether he was willing to withdraw
the allegedly objectionable portion from the book published all over the world
and he should submit an affidavit as per the suggestions orally observed in
the court room. lt was also suggested that if the affidavit was obtained,' it

-
p would be without prejudice to the rights of the author, printer and publisher
and the affidavit would be used only to enable the State to close the matter
and put an end to the entire controversy. The appellants stated that a draft
affidavit was placed before the learned Judges of the High Court in the
presence of all the learned counsel representing the parties, wherein certain
corrections were made in hand and the learned counsel were directed to
G incorporate the corrections and submit the affidavit to the counsel of the
State to enable him to obtain instructions from the Government and in the
mearitime, the publisher would get the original affidavit signed and attested t'
from USA, where the author was residing. The matter was adjourned to
27 .04.2004 to give sufficient time to the author to file the original affidavit. The
H signed affidavit of the author was handed over to the learned counsel
MANZAR SAYEEDKHAN 1•. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LOKESHWAR SINGH" \NTA, J.J 913

representing the State in advance before the next date of hearing of the writ A
/
petitions on 27.04.2004. When the matters came up for hearing before the
High Court, the attested and authenticated copies of the affidavit were
presented before the learned Judges without prejudice to the defence of the
parties. The counsel for the Stat~ appeared, but he expressed his inability to
give any definite reply and made a statement in the Court that there was a
very positive response to the affidavit filed by the author and since the B
;.
decision had to be taken at the highest level and· as the Chief Minister and
the Deputy Chief Minister both were busy with the General Assembly Elections
in the State of Maharashtra, he would require few more days time before
making any statement. On the request of the learned counsel for the State,
the matter was adjourned to 30.04.2004. c
9. On 30.04.2004, the counsel for the State of Maharashtra filed an
affidavit of the Principal Secretary (Special), Government of Maharashtra,
Home Department, submitting that the State would want to investigate whether
there was an organised attempt to destroy the social tranquility or was it a
fre~k occurrence. In the said affidavit, it was stated that one passage of the D
.. ~ book had hurt the sentiments of the people of all sections of the society and
that it would not be in the larger public interest to drop the charges. Since
the State had expressed its inability to accept the suggestions of the Court
and the compromise formula, the matter was heard on merits. The arguments
could not be concluded on 30.04.2004 and the petitions were adjourned to
05.052004.
E

10. On 05.05.2004, the counsel for the appellant submitted written
submissions that no offence under Sections 153 and 153A was made out
against the appellants. During the pendency of the writ petitions, interim

- order of stay of further proceedings in FIR No. l 0 of 2004 was granted. The
affidavit dated 16.04.2004 filed by Prof. James W. Laine, the author of the
book, was taken on record on 27.04.2004 and the affidavit dated 20.04.2004
filed by the appellant-publisher of the book, was also taken on record on
F

27.04.2004. The High Court on 06.05.2004 recorded an order that the
undertakings given by Prof. James W. Laine as well as by the appellants were
accepted by the Court, but the interim stay order granted on 23.02.2004, G
whereby further proceedings in the FIR were stayed, was vacated holding

.. that the investigation was not complete and the Court has to see all the
statements recorded after full investigation. The Criminal Writ Petitions filed
by the appellants were kept pending. Now, the order dated 06.05.2004 is
impugned before us by the appellants.
H
)r
"·
914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 4 S.C.R.

A I I. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record.

I2. Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
Manzar Sayeed Khan, vehemently contended that on reading of the FIR it
becomes clear that it does not disclose_ any offence under Sections 153, I53A
B and 34 of IPC since Section 153A requires that there should be some element
of mens rea in doing acts contemplated in the Section. He contended that the
FIR was registered by the Senior Police Officer without even going through
the offending contents of the paragraph of the book as it is an admitted
position that the book was supplied to the Investigating Officer by the
c publisher on his demand after the registration of FIR. He next contended that
there is no allegation· in the FIR to prove prima facie that a paragraph
complained causes enmity between different classes of the society or creates
any situation of hatred between or among the different religions/castes/social
groups as contemplated in Section I53A, whereas Section 153 IPC is not at
all attracted in this case. According to the learned senior counsel, it was
D during the review of the historical facts that the allegedly offending paragraph
was written and as soon as it was brought to the notice of the appellants and ...
the author that one section of the society had raised some objections in
regard to the statement in one passage of the book, the entire stock of the
book was withdrawn immediately from the market in the country. He lastly
submitted that the book was written with its objective to review the historical
E
facts of a great historical figure, therefore, the book has to be read and
examined as a whole and a solitary paragraph does not provide any cogent
'ground to file FIR against the appellants, being publisher and printer of the
book.

F 13. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant Vinod Hansaj Goyal has adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. '
Soli J. Sorabjee, learned senior counsel. .

14. Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the State of Maharashtra, contended that prima facie the FIR discloses the
G commission of the offence under Section 153A of IPC against the appellants
and the author of the book as the offensive paragraph in the book is the
wanton piece of writing and had disturbed the social tranquility of the State.
According to. the learned senior counsel, the order of the High Court directing ,. .. ,.._.

further investigation does not suff!:r from any perversity or illegality and the
State, as a conscious keeper of law and order, would want to investigate the
H
-(
I

MANZARSAYEEDKHAN •·.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (LOKESHWAR SINGHPANTA, J.) 915

case whether there was any attempt to disturb any social tranquility in the A
State and other parts of the country because of writing the alleged offensive
. paragraph in the book. He further submitted that everything which is art
offence or which is prohibited by law or which furnishes ground for a civil
action is 'illegal' as defined under Section 43 of IPC. Hence, according to
learned senior counsel, after the investigation of the case is complete, the
State Government would be in a better position to have an objective assessment B
of the whole situation and take appropriate action on the subject-matter in
controversy and at this initial stage no relief should be granted to the
appellants as prayed for.

15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the respective
C.
contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The question to be decided

•· now is whether the paragraph complained of would attract the penal
consequences envisaged in Section 153A of IPC. Section 153A of IPC was
amended by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1969 (Act 35 of 1969). It
consists of three clauses of which clauses (a) and (b) alone are material for
,;
the case on hand, which read as under: D
~

"153A. Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of
religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts
prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. ( 1) Whoever-

(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs .or by visible E
representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on
grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or
community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings
of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language
or regional groups or castes or communities, or
.....
' F
(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of hannony
between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or
castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the
public tranquility, or

(C) * * * G
shall .be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years,
.... or with fine, or with both.

- 16. Section 153A ofIPC, as extracted hereinabove, covers a case where
a person by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible
H
't
916

A
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, disharmony
--
or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial,
language or regional groups or castes or communities or acts prejudicial to
the maintenance of harmony or is likely to disturb the public tranquility. The ....
gist of the offence is the intention to promote feelings of enmity or hatred
between different classes of people. The inten.tion to cause disorder or incite
B the people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence under Section 153A
of IPC and the prosecution has to prove prima facie the existence of mens -..
rea on the part of the accused. The intentfon has to be judged primarily by
the language of the book and the circumstances in which the book was
written and published. The matter complained of within the ambit of Section
c I 53A must be read as a whole. One cannot rely on strongly worded and
isolated passages for proving the charge nor indeed can one take a sentence
here and a sentence there and connect them by a meticulous process of
inferential reasoning. •
17. In Ramesh Chotalal Dalal v. Union ofIndia & Ors., AIR (1988) SC
D 775, this Court held that TV serial "Tamas" did not depict communal tension
and violence and the provisions of Section 153A of IPC would not apply to ' '";

it. !twas also not prejudicial to the national integration falling under Section
1538 of IPC. Approving the observations of Vivian Bose, J. in Bhagvati
Charan Shukla v. Provincial Government, AIR (1947) Nagpur l, the Court
observed that the effect of the words must be judged from the standards of
E 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. It is the standard of ordinary reasonable man or as they say in
English Law, "the man on the top ofa clapham omnibus". (Emphasis supplied).

F 18. Again in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P., [1997) 7 SCC 431, it
is held that the common feature in both the Sections, viz., Sections 153A and "':
505(2), being promotion of feeling of enmity, hatred or ill-will "between different"
religious or racial or linguistic or regional groups or castes and communities,
it is necessary that at least two such groups or communities should be
involved. Further, it was observed that merely inciting the feeling of one
G .community or group without any reference to any other community or group
cannot attract either of the two Sections.

19. Prof. James W. Laine, the author of the book, has exercised his ......
-..__

H
reason and his own analytical skills before choosing any literature which he
intends to include in his book. Even if the appellant-Manzer Sayeed Khan, -
MANZAR SAYEED KHAN 1·. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LOKESHWAR SINGHPA~TA, J.) 917

- a constituted Attorney of the Oxford University Press, India and the appellant- A
Vinod Hansraj Goyal, Proprietor of the Rashtriya Printing Press, Shahdara,
Delhi, or the persons whose names are mentioned in the acknowledgement by
the author, have provided information for the purpose, including the said
paragraph in the book, it is important and worth observing that the author
has mentioned that 130Rl, Pune has been his scholarly home in India and
many people therein helped him for collecting the material. The author has
B
given the names of many persons, who had helped him in one way or the
>
other and enlightened him about the history of the historical hero 'Shivaji'.
The author has also mentioned in the book about the International Conference
on Maharashtra, etc., which has given him a lot of material for inclusion in
his book. As it appears from the records, BORI, Pune was established almost c
90 years back and it has a great tradition of scholarly work. It is very
improbable to imagine that any serious and intense scholar will attempt to
~
malign the image of this glorious Institute. The author thought his work to
be worth of dedication to his mother Marie Whitwell Lain~, which was purely
a scholarly pursuit and without any intention or motive to involve himself in
trouble. It is the sole responsibility of the State to make positive efforts to
D
,. )
resolve every possible conflict between any of the communities, castes or
religions within the State and try every possible way to establish peace and
harmony within the State under every and all circumstances.

20. In State of Haryana v. Chaudhary Bhajanlal, AIR (1992) SC 604, E
this Court has observed that an FIR can be quashed if it does not disclose
an offence and there is no need for any investigation or recording of any
statement.

21. In the result, for the above-said reasons, the respondents shall not
proceed against Professor James W. Laine, the author of the book, for offences F
under Sections 153, 153A and 34 of the IPC being the subject matter of F.I.R.
No. 10 of 2004 registered at the Deccan Police Station, Pune.

22. Both the appeals accordingly stand disposed of.

KKT. Appeals disposed of. G