|
The complainant in the MF Hussain's Painting case has moved to the Sessions court against the Magistrate court's order refusing registration of FIR.
On January 23, the Patiala House Court declined to order the registration of an FIR in response to a petition claiming that two paintings by the late artist and Padma awardee MF Husain offended religious sentiments. The Magistrate court had stated that no further investigation was necessary in the matter. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sumit Dass granted time to counsel for Delhi Art Gallery and other respondents to file a response on the revision petition. The matter has been listed on March 3 for arguments on the petition. The court issued a notice on the petition on February 4. The Magistrate court, in its ruling, had noted that the complainant was already aware of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. Additionally, the CCTV footage from the Delhi Art Gallery and the disputed paintings had already been seized. It had further stated that, in its considered view, no additional investigation or evidence gathering was needed at this stage, as all pertinent evidence was already in the complainant's possession and on record. Court had further added that in the present case, all the facts and circumstances of the case are within the knowledge of the complainant. CCTV footage of Delhi Art Gallery, NVR and the paintings in question have already been seized. In the considered opinion of this court, no further investigation and collection of evidence is required on the part of the investigating agency at this stage, as all the evidences are in the possession of the complainant as well as on record, and if the same is required at later stage, then Section 225 BNSS can be resorted to. In the present facts and circumstances, the application u/s 175(3) of Cr.P.C. stands dismissed, the court had ordered on January 23. Earlier, the Court had reserved its decision on whether an FIR should be registered against the Delhi Art Gallery (DAG) and its Owner and director over the display of controversial paintings by renowned artist M.F. Husain. The controversy began when Complainant Amita Sachdeva, a practising advocate visited the DAG in Connaught Place on December 4, 2024, and took photographs of the disputed pieces. Following this, she filed a complaint with the Parliament Street Police Station on December 9, 2024, after researching past FIRs lodged against Husain for similar works. However, during a subsequent visit on December 10, 2024, with the investigating officer, the paintings were mysteriously removed and gallery officials claimed that they had never been on display, according to the petitioner. In response to Sachdeva's petition, Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Sahil Monga reviewed the Action Taken Report (ATR) from the police, which included CCTV footage and a list of artworks provided by the gallery. The court noted that the report confirmed that the disputed paintings were listed under Serial Nos. 6 and 10 in the gallery's inventory. Judge Monga then issued an order for the paintings to be seized, directing the investigating officer to file a report on the seizure by January 22, 2025. (ANI)
|
