Madhya Pradesh Court was hearing a plea filed by TV Producer Ekta Kapoor under Section 482 of CrPC, seeking quash of an FIR registered against her for allegedly spreading obscenity, hurting religious feelings and objectionable content in a web series.
On Wednesday, Single Judge Bench of Justice Shailendra Shukla while hearing the matter has refused to quash the registered FIR against Ekta Kapoor. The court has observed that the importance exercise of recording evidence will consider to determine whether scenes in alleged web show is obscene or not. And the bench held that “As far as the present case is concerned, it cannot be stated outrightly that the impugned episode is not obscene.”
The complainant, Valmik Sakaragaye, a resident of Indore had alleged that the Web Series XXX Seson 2 which is on air at OTT platflorm – ALT Balaji and owned by Television Celebrity Ekta Kapoor, spreads obscenity, dishonour to national emblem and also there is particular scene which allegedly tarnish the reputation of the Indian Army in very objectionable way.
Consequently, an FIR was lodged against Ekta Kapoor under the provisions of Section 294, 298, 34 of the IPC, and under the provisions of Section 67, 67-A of the Information Technology Act, and also under the provision of Section 3 of the State Emblem of India Act, 2005.
In response to this, Kapoor has contended that the Internet is flooded with much more explicit forms of obscenity. And the episodes do not depict obscenity and the impugned scenes of physical intimacy are not graphic in nature but are stimulated. Kapoor has further submitted that appropriate precautions have been taken by publishing a disclaimer that the alleged Web-Show contains a strong language, mature & intimate scenes and are available to be watched only by adults through subscription of ALT Balaji.
Considering the arguments from both the sides, the bench has observed that “Although, it would be fair enough to state that provision of Section 298 of IPC & the provision of the State Emblem Act are not found to have been breached. Consequently, the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, stands dismissed”.
