Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1154 (JHR)

Bipin Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2009-08-19

R.R.PRASAD

body2009
JUDGMENT : This writ application is directed against the order dated 2.8.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh in G.R. no.1954 of 2000 (arising out of Katkamsandi P.S. case no.108 of 2000) whereby application filed under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge was rejected. It appears that first information report was lodged on the allegation that the petitioners and his family members made it known to the public of the locality by declaring that Goddess Chinna Mastika has been so much pleased that she would be showing her hand everyday at the time of ‘Aarti’. Such propaganda was made with an intention to have more gathering so that they may have more money which the people would be offering to the Goddess. Further allegation is that the accused persons used to display for a fraction of second an artificial hand made up of plastic and claimed to be the real Lord of the Goddess. Thus, by adopting such means, they cheated the public at large. On such allegation, Katkamsandi P. S. case no.108 of 2000 was instituted under sections 298, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The police on completion investigating find the allegation to be true and hence, submitted charge sheet, upon which cognizance of the offence was taken. In due course, application for discharge under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed which was rejected. Being aggrieved with that, a case bearing Cr.M.P. no.269 of 2006 filed before this Court. On hearing this, court while setting aside the order under which prayer for discharge has been rejected, remanded the matter back for reconsideration of the matter. Pursuant to that, the learned court after hearing the parties passed the impugned order under which prayer for discharge was again rejected. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that taking entire allegation made in the first information report or the material collected during investigation, no offence is made out either under section 298 or even under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code as alleged act of the petitioner showing artificial hand of the Goddess to the public never constitute an offence under section 298 as the petitioner cannot be said to have wounded religious feeing of the person. Similarly, petitioner cannot be said to have committed offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly, petitioner cannot be said to have committed offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. I find substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners so far it confines the offence under section 298 of the Indian Penal Code. For better appreciation, one needs to have notice of section 298 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under: “ 298 – Uttering, words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person – Whoever, with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person or makes any gesture in the sight of that person or places, any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.” From its bare perusal, it does appear that one can be punished under this provision if he deliberately does an act to wound the religious feelings of the person. Here, in the instant case, the allegation is that the petitioners declared to the public that they will be showing hand of the Goddess ‘Chinna Mastika’. This application even if is accepted to be true, one would wonder as to how the said act has wounded the religious feelings of the Hindus and, therefore, allegation never attracts offence under section 298 of the Indian Penal Code and hence, that part of the order where the court refused to discharge the petitioner from offence under section 298 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby set aside. However, in the facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality wherein the court has found that there has been prima facie material for framing charge under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code as it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners with the intention to have more offering by the gathering made it declared to the general public that the ‘Goddess Chinna Mastika’ would be showing her hand and by that act, the petitioners appear to have dishonestly induced general public to deliver the property by way of offering cheated to the general public and thereby the trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that there appears tobe ample material for framing charge against the petitioners under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. I do not find any illegality so far this part of the order is concerned and accordingly, it needs no interference. In the result, this application is allowed in part. Before parting this order, it may be observed that any finding given in this application shall not be prejudicial as the same was given for the purpose of disposal of this case.