JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report in connection with Pakur Nagar P.S. Case No.79 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 295 (A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 51 (1) (b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and the said case is now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner made a tweet in a social media inviting some words to be written against “Miyan Bhai.” The informant alleged that by such objectionable and obscene tweet by which the sentiments of persons of the society of the informant was hurt and basing upon the same, Pakur Town P.S. Case No.79 of 2021 has been instituted involving the offences punishable under Sections 188, 295 (A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 51 (1) (b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence. The petitioner is a social worker and is the Vice-President of Zila Parishad, Pakur and belongs to a political party. The case has been instituted at the behest of the representative of the Chief Minister in Barhait Constituency; in retaliation of the Sanha lodged by the petitioner on 27.05.2021 against the said representative of the Chief Minister. It is next submitted that the informant is a political worker of the rival Ruling Party and only on account of political grudge and rivalry for wrecking vengeance; this F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner. It is next submitted that even if the allegations made against the petitioner as tweeted by him are considered to be true in its entirety still no offence punishable under any penal provision of law is made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this Cr.M.P. be allowed. 5. It is next submitted that even if the allegations made against the petitioner as tweeted by him are considered to be true in its entirety still no offence punishable under any penal provision of law is made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this Cr.M.P. be allowed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceedings including the First Information Report in connection with Pakur Nagar P.S. Case No.79 of 2021 which is now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits that though no express word about the religion of the informant has been mentioned in the tweet but the words expressed in the tweet certainly indicate to the religion of the informant and the same is offensive in nature. Hence, keeping in view of the COVID-19 Prohibitory Guidelines prevalent at that time, the offences for which the F.I.R. has been registered, is made out against the petitioner and the investigation of the case is still going on. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, so far as the offence punishable under Section 295 (A) of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code are:- (1) The accused insulted or attempted to insult the religion or religious feelings of any class of citizens of India by words, either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise. (2) The said person did so (a) deliberately (b) malicious and intentionally in order to outrage the religious feelings of the said class of citizens. 7. (2) The said person did so (a) deliberately (b) malicious and intentionally in order to outrage the religious feelings of the said class of citizens. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahendra Singh Dhoni vs. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar & Another reported in (2017) 7 SCC 760 had the occasion to consider the scope and impact of Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code and it was observed that Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code does not stipulate everything to be penalised and any and every act which tantamount to insult or attempt to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of a class of citizens is not be penalised. It penalises only those acts of insults to or those varieties of attempts to insult the religion or religious belief of a class of citizens which are perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class of citizens. Insults to religion offered unwittingly or carelessly or without any deliberate or malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of that class do not come within the purview of Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code and the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ramji Lal Modi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 1957 SC 620 has clarified that the provisions of Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code only punishes the aggravated form of insult to religion, when it is perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of a particular class of citizen. Emphasis has been laid on the said calculated tendency of the said aggravated form of insult and also to disrupt the public order to invite the penal consequences. 8. Now, coming to the facts of the case, undisputedly the name of any religion has not been taken by the petitioner. The only word he has used in his tweet, which according to the informant, relates to his religion is “Miyan Bhai.” There is no averment in the F.I.R. nor could any other material be placed by the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 that “Miyan Bhai” means Muslim. The only word he has used in his tweet, which according to the informant, relates to his religion is “Miyan Bhai.” There is no averment in the F.I.R. nor could any other material be placed by the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 that “Miyan Bhai” means Muslim. There is no word expressed by the petitioner to derogate the “Miyan Bhai.” Under such circumstance, keeping in view of the settled principle of law regarding the scope and ambit of Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code as already indicated above, this Court is of the considered view that even if the allegation made against the petitioner in its entirety are taken to be true still the offence punishable under Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 9. So far as the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients are as follows:- (1) There was promulgation of an order. (2) Such promulgation was made by a public servant. (3) The public servant was legally empowered to make promulgation. (4) Promulgation directed not to do certain things or to take certain orders in connection with certain property in possession or management. (5) The accused knew the promulgation. (6) The accused disobeys such direction and such disobedience causes or tends or tended to cause obstruction, annoyance, injury or risk of the same obstruction to any person lawfully employed to causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray. 10. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation of promulgation of any order and violation of any such order by the petitioner to make the alleged tweet. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the allegation against the petitioner are considered to be true in its entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 51 (1) (b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 is concerned, Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 reads as under:- 51. 11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 51 (1) (b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 is concerned, Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 reads as under:- 51. Punishment for obstruction, etc.-(1) Whoever, without reasonable cause— (a) obstructs any officer or employee of the Central Government or the State Government, or a person authorised by the National Authority or State Authority or District Authority in the discharge of his functions under this Act; or (b) refuses to comply with any direction given by or on behalf of the Central Government or the State Government or the National Executive Committee or the State Executive Committee or the District Authority under this Act, shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both, and if such obstruction or refusal to comply with directions results in loss of lives or imminent danger thereof, shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years. The bare perusal of the Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 reveals that there is no sub-section (1)of Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. Section 51 (b) of the Disaster Manager Act, 2005 envisages punishment for the person who refuses to comply with any direction given by or on behalf of the Central Government or the State Government. 12. Now, coming to the facts of the case in Annexure- B page-23 of the counter-affidavit, a letter issued to the Administrator of all Union Territories by the Home Secretary, Government of India has been annexed. Undisputedly, the occurrence took place at Jharkhand which is not a Union Territory. There is no allegation against the petitioner of refusing to comply with any direction given by or on behalf of the Central Government. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court that even if the allegation against the petitioner are considered to be true in its entirety still the offence punishable under Section 51 (1) (b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 is not made out against the petitioner. 13. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court that even if the allegation against the petitioner are considered to be true in its entirety still the offence punishable under Section 51 (1) (b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 is not made out against the petitioner. 13. In view of the discussions made above since no offence as alleged against the petitioner is made out even if the allegations made in the F.I.R. are considered to be true in its entirety; hence, this Court is of the considered view that the F.I.R. of the instant case, has been lodged with the sole purpose of wrecking vengeance upon the petitioner because of political rivalry between the informant and the petitioner and though investigation of the case is going on since 2021 still it has not yet been completed which also indicates regarding the frivolity of the allegations. This Court is of the considered view that since the allegations made in the F.I.R., even if considered to be true, do not make out any offence against the petitioner, hence, the continuation of the F.I.R. against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. 14. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the First Information Report in connection with Pakur Nagar P.S. Case No.79 of 2021 which is now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur, is quashed and set aside against the petitioner. 15. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.