JUDGMENT : Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. This matter had been placed before this Court previously on 09.10.2018 also, but as the learned A.G.A. had requested for some time to seek instructions, the hearing was deferred for today. The matter has come up as fresh once again. 2. Heard applicant's counsel as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 3. The central thrust of the allegations made against the applicant is that on some occasion while giving a public speech he had made some utterances which were prima facie of such nature that were capable to excite communal feelings and thus he has committed the offence punishable under Section 153-A of I.P.C. It was also alleged that thereby the provisions of Section 144 of Code of Criminal Procedure were also got flouted. The alleged speech is said to have been recorded in a C.D. and information in this regard seems to have been given to the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned. The Sub Divisional Magistrate who got the F.I.R. lodged, has mentioned therein that a letter was forwarded to him by the Station Officer in which it had been made to appear that on hearing the C.D. the contents of the speech were found to be of such objectionable nature which constituted the offence. This report of Station Officer appears to have prompted the S.D.M. to lodge the F.I.R. against the applicant. Subsequently investigation was done and the charge sheet was also submitted in the matter. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that though the perusal of the entire case diary does not disclose or reveal as to what are the actual contents of this alleged speech said to have been made by the applicant, the learned Magistrate has yet taken cognizance in the matter on that basis. Counsel's assertion is that the F.I.R. or the case diary does not furnish any clue at all about the actual utterances made by the applicant. It has been contended that the Magistrate would have been capable to take cognizance in the matter only if the said speech was actually cited or quoted therein and was found to be of such objectionable nature which made out the offence and on the basis of which the court could determine to proceed against the accused and take cognizance in the matter. The original C.D. itself ought to have been forwarded to the court below in order to check the contents thus quoted in the case diary. In fact the Magistrate could also have taken cognizance of the matter by playing the C.D. and see it for himself whether it actually contained such material which could constitute the alleged offence. These were the only two ways how the cognizance could have been taken by the Magistrate i.e. after replaying and hearing the speech recorded in the C.D. or by reading the text of the speech which could and should have been copied by the Investigating Officer in the case diary. But there is nothing on record to show that the alleged C.D. was ever sent to the court or was ever played and heard by the court. It has been emphasized by the counsel that the contents of the speech having neither been quoted or copied or referred in the entire case diary nor the C.D. having been forwarded or heard by the court below, it leaves us clueless as to what were the actual contents of the said speech. Argument is that without knowing or without taking care to know as to what were the contents of the said speech the act of taking cognizance in the matter is reflecting complete non application of judicial mind which shall in turn go to vitiate the validity of the cognizance order itself. According to the counsel it is quite possible that the contents of the speech may be of such nature which could not at all constitute any offence and it can not be ruled out that the utterances might have been of such innocuous nature to which nobody would have had any serious objection. All this could be determined only after knowing what the contents of the said speech actually were. Counsel has sought to argue that the applicant being an important face of the rival political party sitting in opposition, he was treated as a disdainful betenoire by the then ruling party holding the reins of power and hence, the investigation in the matter was done in a unilaterally partisan and lackadaisical manner and the charge sheet was also submitted under the coercive influence of the party which was then at the helm simply to defile and besmirch the political image of the applicant. Counsel has further sought to argue that Section 188 I.P.C. is an offence regarding which a complaint ought to have been filed and so far as the Section 153A I.P.C. is concerned, according to the counsel, no court could have taken cognizance regarding it without there being the previous sanction of the government which is woefully lacking in the present case. Contention is that for all these reasons and grounds the cognizance order and the consequential proceedings stand completely vitiated and the continuation of the same will be tantamount to sheer abuse of court's process. 4. Learned A.G.A., who has appeared in the matter, has opposed the submissions made on behalf of the applicant but on the specific query raised by the Court as to whether the entire case diary makes any mention as to what were the actual contents of the alleged speech, his answer was in the negative. Again on the specific query raised by the Court as to what was actually spoken by the applicant, learned A.G.A. remained clueless and could not furnish any answer to the same ostensibly for the reason that nowhere in the case diary the contents of the speech seem to have been quoted. The cognizance order passed by the Magistrate also does not disclose that the alleged C.D. in which the said speech has been taped or recorded, was ever forwarded to or produced before the court and if at all it was, the same was ever played or heard by the learned Magistrate enabling him to know about its contents. 5. Contentions raised at the bar require detailed hearing on law and facts both. 6. Notices on behalf of opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have been accepted by learned AGA. Learned AGA may file counter affidavit within three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter. 7. List this matter immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period before the appropriate Bench. 8. Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of case No. 3017 of 2010, State vs. Mohammad Azam Khan, arising out of case crime no. 165 of 2007, under Sections 188, 153-A I.P.C., P.S. Rasoolpur, District Firozabad, with regard to applicant namely Mohammad Azam Khan, shall remain stayed.