JUDGMENT D.K. Sinha, J.-The instant Cr. Revision is directed against the order impugned dated 5.5.2009 passed by Shri D. Roy, Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in Parsudih PS. Case No. 138 of 2005 corresponding to G.R. No. 2282 of 2005 by which the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners for their discharge for the alleged offence under Sections 290/295A/ 420/34 I.P.C. was rejected. 2. The prosecution story in short was that the Officer-in-Charge of Parsudih Police Station i.e. the informant herein having perused the news item in the daily newspaper "Prabhat Khabar" that a Tandav Dance was held and organized by Anand Margis with the photographs of the said dance duly performed by the children having human skull and dagger in their hands having been published in news items. The informant gathered from his sources that on 15.10.2005 as also on the subsequent day on 16.10.2005 the Public Relations Secretary, Sunil Anand of "Anand Marg" had organized the Tandav Dance by putting the District Administration in dark and he had invited the media persons for coverage of such programme in print media as well as in electronic media and accordingly the same was telecast on different T.V. Channels. It was stated that such telecast of such event especially Tandav Dance was prohibited by the order of the Apex Court. The said programme was repeated from 20.10.2005 to 23.10.2005 in the Ashram of "Anand Marg" at Godra which also attracted the attention of print media and electronic media and in that manner the organizers of such tried to cause hurt to the sentiments of the people of different faiths. Acharya Manav Mitranand Awadhoot was the chief functionary and the event was organized under the supervision of Acharya Chandradeo and Sunil Anand who were the active members of such organization and by their act they have committed the offence. The F.I.R. was instituted against three named accused, who are the petitioners herein and also against their associates. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on be half of the petitioner at the outset submitted that the petitioners were innocent and no offence much less' the offence alleged under Sections 290/295A/420/34 I.P.C. could be attracted against any of them. Section 290 I.P.C. relates to public nuisance that ha, been defined under Section 268 I.P.C. 4. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on be half of the petitioner at the outset submitted that the petitioners were innocent and no offence much less' the offence alleged under Sections 290/295A/420/34 I.P.C. could be attracted against any of them. Section 290 I.P.C. relates to public nuisance that ha, been defined under Section 268 I.P.C. 4. Learned Counsel pointed out that by performing "Tandav Dance" tile Demonstrators did not cause any public nuisance, as the same was performed in the Ashram, which has been admitted by the informant. The main ingredient of the offence nuisance is that it may cause injury or annoyance to the public or to the people to dwel or occupy property in the vicinity, which must unnecessarily cause injury, danger, obstruction or annoyance. But in the instant case none expressed any grievance of any kind against such Tandav Dance which was confined within the periphery of a Ashram. The Counsel relied upon the famous latin maxim "Sic Uteri Tuout Allienum Nun Laedes" which means enjoy your own property in such a manner and not to enjoy the rights of another. 5. As regards offence attracted under Section 295A LP.C. it was inserted by" the Act 29 of 1927 which speaks whoever with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class by words as the spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or fine or with both. In the instant case the prosecution failed to make out a case of such offence against the petitioners. The prosecution failed to prove that such demonstration outraged the religious feelings of other community either by words and submission or written or intentional or that the petitioners had insulted or attempted to insult the religious feelings of different community. The application of Section 295A in the facts and circumstances and the cognizance taken thereof by the learned court below in that offence would amount to miscarriage of justice as the prosecution failed to show any material in the case diary about the "mens rea of the petitioners in so doing the alleged offence. 6. The application of Section 295A in the facts and circumstances and the cognizance taken thereof by the learned court below in that offence would amount to miscarriage of justice as the prosecution failed to show any material in the case diary about the "mens rea of the petitioners in so doing the alleged offence. 6. As regards the cognizance of the offence under Section 420 I.P.C., admittedly the petitioners never sought permission from the local administration for the demonstration/performance of Tandav Dance within their Ashram as the same was not required as it was never performed at a public place beyond the four walls of the Ashram. Even otherwise also failure to seek permission from the local "administration for demonstration or performance of Tandav Dance did not attract the provisions of the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. 7. Finally, learned Counsel submitted that the informant has quoted the proposition of law as formulated by the Apex Court reported in "1983(4) S.C.C. Page 522 and the informant alleged that such demonstration of Anand Margis was prohibited. Relying upon such proposition of law, the learned Counsel explained on the basis of the averment made in paragraph NO.5, of the Cr. Revision Petition that the Apex Court observed that Anand Marg had no fundamental right under Article 25/26 of the Constitution of India as it was a Sect of Hindu as a Sebait, so they had no right under such Articles to do anything which was prohibited in the original religion. The Anand Margis were prohibited to carry trident, daggers or knife and live snakes within the public view as it, would disturb the public peace, might harm public order and tranquility. However, it observed that the Anand Marg may take out procession in public after obtaining necessary permission from the authority concerned and were also entitled to carry trident and skull as long as the procession was peaceful, in the instant case the petitioners were not found spreading violence on the ground of religion, race or language. Therefore, in view of the above contentions the prosecution of the petitioners was malicious, uncalled for and was liable to be set aside. 8. Therefore, in view of the above contentions the prosecution of the petitioners was malicious, uncalled for and was liable to be set aside. 8. Learned A.P.P. submitted that the petitioners who were the organizers of such Tandav Dance had not obtained prior permission from the local authority, for demonstration and that the telecast of demonstration of Tandav Dance would certainly be presumed that the same was held in presence of public viewers through Television and therefore, the petitioners cannot be exonerated from their criminal liabilities. However, the learned A.P.P. conceded that no complain was registered against such demonstration alleging that the religious feelings or religious sentiments of any person of different faith• was hurt. With reference to paragraph NO.9 of the counter-affidavit, the learned A.P.P. submitted that Section 420 I.P.C. was applicable against the petitioners as they had not taken prior permission from the authority for performing such type of dance. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and the materials referred to from the case diary that has been brought on the record I find that the prosecution failed to bring home prima facie material to call for charge against the petitioners for the alleged offence under Sections 290/295A1 420/34 I.P.C. The witnesses were consistent that the demonstration of Tandav Dance was confined within the periphery of Ashram and not within the public view and for that prior permission of the local authority, therefore, was not required as the same was confined to the viewers who had faith on the principles of Anand Marg. The informant relied upon the news item published in file print media with the photograph and that such demonstration was telecasted through electronic media but the fact remains that the dance was not organized at public place or a public road and there was no expressed prohibition from its coverage in the print media or electronic media. The Hon'ble Apex Court had given certain liberty in case. of organizing procession and even they were permitted to carry trident and skull but with the permission of local administration. In the instant case since it was admitted that the entire demonstration or the performance was made within the periphery of Ashram I do not find the ingredients of Sections 290/295A1420/34 I.P.C. are attracted against the petitioners so as to call them to face criminal prosecution. In the instant case since it was admitted that the entire demonstration or the performance was made within the periphery of Ashram I do not find the ingredients of Sections 290/295A1420/34 I.P.C. are attracted against the petitioners so as to call them to face criminal prosecution. I find merit in this petition, accordingly, the order impugned dated 5.5.2009 of taking cognizance in Parsudih P.S. Case No. 138 of 2005 corresponding to G.R. No. 2282 of 2005 is set aside. The petitioners are discharged from their criminal liabilities. 10. Accordingly, this petition is allowed.