Supreme Court quashes the criminal proceedings agains M.S. Dhoni

Supreme Court quashes the criminal 

proceedings agains M.S. Dhoni

New Delhi: Suprme Court on Monday, 5^th September 2016 quashed the criminal proceedings against cricketer Mahendra Singh Dhoni for allegedly hurting religious sentiments by portraying as God on a magazine cover.

Earlier on 15^th September 2015 Supreme Court stayed criminal proceedings against him on a complaint lodged for allegedly portraying himself as Lord Vishnu on a magazine cover.

A bench comprising of Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and R K Agrawal also stayed the operation of the order of Karnataka high court which had refused to stall the criminal proceedings against him.

Cricketer Mahendra Singh Dhone recemt;u moved the Supreme Court against Karnataka High Court order in a case filed against him for allegedly “denigrating” a Hindu god by posing as Lord Vishnu on a magazine cover page.

The Special Leave Petition filed by Dhoni, challenging the Karnataka HC order which had refused to quash the criminal proceedings pending against him before a trial court in Bengaluru.

The High Court had observed: “A celebrity and a cricketer like Dhoni should know the consequences of hurting religious sentiments of people. He should have known the consequences of doing such ads.”

The complaint, filed by social activist Jayakumar Hiremath, had alleged that Dhoni was seen on the cover of a business magazine as Lord Vishnu, holding several things, including a shoe in his hands.

The High Court had said, “These celebrities are only signing ads without any responsibility. Their aim is to earn easy money without considering the problems it may create.”

Taking cognisance of the complaint filed by Hiremath, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) had registered a case against Dhoni under section 295 (injuring or defiling place of worship with intent to insult the religion of any class) along with 34 of the IPC.

Later, the ACMM had issued summons to Dhoni to appear before the court, which he did not and instead moved the High Court against its direction.