Bhoota Kola: High Court declines to quash probe against actor Chetan

The high court has declined to quash the investigation initiated against actor Chetan A Kumar for his statements about Bhoota Kola, in connection with the Kannada film Kantara.

Justice M I Arun said that it is not possible to decide whether the allegations constitute an offence under section 505 (2) which prescribes punishment for statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes since the matter is still under investigation.

Seshadripuram police had registered an FIR based on a complaint by one Shivakumar. It was alleged that Chetan had made derogatory statements against the Hindu religion while making comments on the Bhoota Kola tradition, shown in the film Kantara, which hurt the sentiments of the Hindu religion and had the effect of disturbing the peace in society.

Chetan contended that he had merely expressed his opinion on the tribal deity worship not being a part of the Hindu religion and that it is a fair comment as well as academic in nature. He also submitted that the statement cannot be considered as promoting any enmity, hatred or ill-will between the persons in the society and does not constitute an offence under IPC section 505 (2).

“It is needless to state that the first respondent - the police - will not mechanically file a charge sheet without due investigation. The petitioner under the circumstances is always at liberty to move the appropriate court for obtaining the necessary bail and the same shall be considered by the concerned court in accordance with the law,” the court said.

The bench further said, “As the matter is still under investigation, it is not possible for this court to decide as to whether the allegations made against the petitioner constitute an offence as contemplated under Section 505(2) of IPC. It is also needless to state that if the first respondent - the police - decide to file a charge sheet against the petitioner after the completion of the investigation. The petitioner is always at liberty to move this court in accordance with the law.”