Patiala House Court refuses FIR on MF Hussain painting dispute, magistrate’s decision remains intact

Patiala House Sessions Court, famous painter M.F. Police have refused to conduct an inquiry on the controversial complaint lodged about two paintings of Hussain. The complaint alleged that these paintings hurt the sentiments of Hinduism. Additional Judge of Sessions Court, Pratap Singh Lesh said that there was no mistake in the verdict given by the magistrate court on 22 January. The magistrate had decided that the matter should be taken forward as a complaint case.

The court also clarified that the complainant Advocate Amita Sachdeva herself has evidence to prove his allegations through paintings and witnesses.

Such a dispute started

According to the complaint lodged in the court, on 4 December 2024, Amita Sachdeva went to an art gallery in Delhi. There he made M.F. Hussain saw two paintings, which he described as objectionable and hurting Hindu sentiments.

After this, he lodged a complaint with the police. But when she returned to the gallery with the investigating officer on 10 December, the paintings were removed. After this, he filed a petition in the court seeking to keep the paintings safe as evidence and register an FIR.

Delhi Police presented its report in the court. It said that these paintings were part of a private exhibition and their purpose was only to showcase the original compositions of the artist.

Paintings were confiscated on the court’s order, but the police said that there was no evidence that could prove a cognizable offense. Therefore FIR was not recorded. The magistrate also refused to register an FIR by looking at the police report.

Additional police investigation is not required- Court

The sessions court said that Section 299 of BNSS comes only when it is proved that someone has deliberately and maliciously hurt religious sentiments. The court also said that the complainant has pictures and personal observation of paintings.

Gallery staff or experts can be called as witnesses. Paintings and CCTV footage have already been seized. Therefore, no forensic investigation or additional police investigation is required at this level.

Magistrates can decide forward

The court clarified that if further needed, the magistrate can order a police inquiry under Section 225 of BNSS. At present, the case will proceed as a complaint.