Husain paintings: Court dismisses plea for FIR against gallery officials

New Delhi: A Delhi court dismissed an application seeking an FIR against officials of DAG (formerly known as Delhi Art Gallery) for displaying paintings by MF Husain, stating that the complainant could directly present the evidence to the magistrate.
The court of judicial magistrate first class Sahil Monga, in its order dated Jan 22, noted that CCTV footage of DAG, network video recorder, and the paintings in question had already been seized. It stated that no further investigation and collection of evidence were required at this stage, as all the evidence was in the possession of the complainant as well as on record. "If the same is required at a later stage, then Section 225 BNSS can be resorted to. In the present facts and circumstances, the application under Section 175(3) of CrPC stands dismissed," the court added.
The court, however, allowed the complainant, advocate Amita Sachdeva, to present the evidence directly to the magistrate. It will also examine whether there is sufficient ground to proceed with the matter. "This matter may be proceeded as a complaint case henceforth. Let notice be issued to proposed accused persons in terms of the first proviso to Section 223 BNSS for Feb 12," the court ordered.
Sachdeva, in her complaint, sought directions to police to register an FIR against the organisers of an exhibition in the gallery last month. She alleged that two works of the late painter on display "depicted Hindu gods and goddesses in an obscene manner".
Her complaint also sought the preservation of CCTV footage from Dec 4, 6, and 10—the dates when the exhibition took place. On Jan 20, the court ordered the seizure of two paintings by the late Padma awardee following a complaint from Sachdeva.
The court, citing a Delhi High Court judgment, said the magistrate had the power to direct police to register a case and investigate the matter, but this power was to be exercised judiciously and not in a mechanical manner.
Later, DAG issued a statement and "strongly opposed the complainant's unfounded allegations". It said it intended to "pursue its own legal remedies against the complainant".