Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1118 (JHR)

Bhanu Pratap Sahi v. State of Jharkhand

2015-09-16

H.C.MISHRA

body2015
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the opposite party No.2. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 4.4.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in complaint case No.1146 of 2007, whereby, on the basis of allegations in the complaint petition, the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statements of the witnesses examined in the enquiry stage, cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. the petitioner has also prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against him in the said case. 3. The complaint petition has been brought on record, which shows that the complainant, who is a practicing advocate of the Civil Courts, Ranchi, was going in his car and when he reached near the old bus stand crossing on Ratu Road, he heard the sound of siren. Due to heavy traffic, he could not give pass to the vehicles blowing the siren. The security persons, who were there on the pilot car armed with AK-47 assault rifles, surrounded the vehicle of the complainant and started abusing and threatening the complainant in abusive languages, which are detailed in the complaint petition. The complainant recognized the petitioner sitting in car, who was then the Heath Minister in the State of Jharkhand. It is alleged that the petitioner was also instigating the security man sitting in his car, to teach the complainant a lesson, whereupon, the security person from his car also come out and he also abused and insulted the complainant in abusive languages. With these allegations, the complaint petition was filed, which was instituted as complaint case No.1146 of 2007. The statement of the complainant was recorded on solemn affirmation and the statements of some witnesses were also recorded in the enquiry stage, on the basis of which the cognizance for the offence under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, has been taken against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, and there is no allegation against the petitioner to have abused the complainant in abusive language or to have insulted him. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, and there is no allegation against the petitioner to have abused the complainant in abusive language or to have insulted him. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that no offence under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, can be said to be made out against the petitioner. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.R. Meena Vs. Mangal Das Chiman Lal Barot & Anr., reported in 1987 (Supp) SCC 597, wherein, it has been held that "the mere utterance of abusive words without more does not constitute an offence under the section" 504 of the Indian Penal Code. It has also been held by the Apex Court in the said case that "the essential requirements are that the accused must intentionally insult and such insult must give provocation to any person and further that he must have the requisite knowledge that such provocation will result in breach of public peace or commission of any other offence". Placing reliance on this decision, learned counsel submitted that the impugned order dated 4.4.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, taking cognizance against the petitioner, as also the continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner, are absolutely illegal, and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 5. Learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the complainant opposite party No.2 have opposed the prayer, submitting that on the basis of the allegations against the petitioner, the offence is clearly made out against the petitioner. It is also submitted that being the Minister of Health at the relevant time, he was not even entitled to pilot vehicles, which were illegally being used by the petitioner. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order, and in view of the specific allegations against the petitioner, no case is made out for any interference in the criminal proceeding against the petitioner at this stage. 6. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order, and in view of the specific allegations against the petitioner, no case is made out for any interference in the criminal proceeding against the petitioner at this stage. 6. From perusal of the complaint petition and the statements of the complainant on solemn affirmation, it is apparent that there is allegation against the petitioner also, to have instigated the security person sitting in his car to teach a lesson to the complainant, where upon the security person from his car also come out and he also abused and insulted the complainant in abusive languages. The impugned order also shows that the Court below has taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner was not entitled to use the pilot vehicles, which were being used by him illegally. Taking into consideration these facts, the Court below has taken cognizance for offence under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 7. In my considered view, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of this case, particularly in view of the fact that there is allegation that the complainant was abused and insulted on a busy road crossing, upon instigation made by the petitioner, and in that view of the matter, there were chances of breach of peace by the public present there, objecting the illegal acts of the petitioner. On the basis of the allegations in the complaint petition, the offences under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code are clearly made out. 8. In the facts of this case, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 4.4.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in complaint case No.1146 of 2007, taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly, dismissed.