The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to interfere with an order quashing a criminal complaint against convicted rapist and self-styled godman Gurmeet Ram Rahim. (State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Insan).A Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta upheld an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in this regard."No merit in the special leave petition. Dismissed," it said..The Punjab and Haryana High Court had in October last year quashed the first information report (FIR) registered against the Dera Sacha Sauda chief.The State of Punjab moved the Supreme Court in appeal against this order.Ram Rahim, who is serving his prison sentence in rape and murder cases, was booked in March 2023 over remarks made in a speech during a Satsang (spiritual discourse) in 2016.He had mentioned an incident involving Sant Kabir Das and Guru Ravidas, while discussing the relationship between a spiritual master and his disciples.The High Court had found that the comments made were rooted in historical resources and that there was no evidence to suggest that his remarks were meant to insult to religious sentiments or beliefs.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to interfere with an order quashing a criminal complaint against convicted rapist and self-styled godman Gurmeet Ram Rahim. (State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Insan).A Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta upheld an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in this regard."No merit in the special leave petition. Dismissed," it said..The Punjab and Haryana High Court had in October last year quashed the first information report (FIR) registered against the Dera Sacha Sauda chief.The State of Punjab moved the Supreme Court in appeal against this order.Ram Rahim, who is serving his prison sentence in rape and murder cases, was booked in March 2023 over remarks made in a speech during a Satsang (spiritual discourse) in 2016.He had mentioned an incident involving Sant Kabir Das and Guru Ravidas, while discussing the relationship between a spiritual master and his disciples.The High Court had found that the comments made were rooted in historical resources and that there was no evidence to suggest that his remarks were meant to insult to religious sentiments or beliefs.