JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with three- fold prayers. The first prayer is to quash the order dated 04.02.2022 passed in Complaint Case No. 229 of 2021 by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chaibasa whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chaibasa has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 500 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE against the petitioner. The second prayer is to quash the order dated 03.10.2019 passed in Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2019 by the Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa and the third prayer is to quash the order dated 06.08.2025 passed in Complaint Case No. 229 of 2021 by the Special Judge, MP/MLA, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa whereby and where under, substance of accusation has been explained to the petitioner. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the opposite party no.2-complainant filed Complaint Case No. 229 of 2021 alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 500 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE by the petitioner, as the petitioner by speaking, made imputations concerning the president of a national political party of which the complainant is an office bearer, intending to harm and having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of such president of the national political party concerned. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chaibasa vide order dated 15.02.2019 dismissed the complaint petition of the complainant-opposite party no.2 in exercise of the power under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. The complainant-opposite party no.2 filed Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2019 in the court of Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chaibasa vide order dated 15.02.2019 dismissed the complaint petition of the complainant-opposite party no.2 in exercise of the power under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. The complainant-opposite party no.2 filed Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2019 in the court of Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa. Vide the order dated 03.10.2019 the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa after inter alia observing that it found that averments of the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation coupled with the materials available on the record categorically constitute ingredients of offences as alleged and there appear prima facie sufficient materials for proceeding against the proposed accused for having committed the offence, further observed that the reason assigned by the learned Magistrate for dismissing the complaint is not tenable and went on to set aside the order dated 15.02.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Complaint Case No. 161 of 2018 and directed the lower court to hear the petitioner and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 5. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa vide order dated 04.02.2022 considered the said observation made by the learned Session Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2019 and after going through the materials in the record considering the statement on solemn affirmation of inquiry witnesses, the facts and circumstances as discussed and also the order passed in Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2019 dated 03.10.2019 (which has apparently because of printing error been mentioned as Criminal Revision No. 03 of 2019, in the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa) by the learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa, came to the conclusion that there are sufficient materials to proceed further for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE against the petitioner as prima facie case is made out for the said offence against the petitioner and directed for issue of summons. 6. On 06.08.2025 the petitioner appeared before the learned Special Court of Elected M.P./M.L.A.-cum-S.D.J.M., Sadar, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in the said Complaint Case No. 229 of 2021 and he was taken into custody. The petitioner made prayer for regular bail and the petitioner was granted bail on the same day of his appearance, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties. The petitioner made prayer for regular bail and the petitioner was granted bail on the same day of his appearance, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties. The petitioner furnished bail bond and later on, on 06.08.2025 substance of offence punishable under Section 500 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE was explained to the petitioner, who was accused person of the case in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The case was fixed to 25.08.2025 for evidence of the complainant but it is submitted at the Bar that so far complainant has not examined any witness. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of this Court to Section 398 of Code of Criminal Procedure, that the same mandates that on exercising power upon any record under Section 397 Cr.P.C. or otherwise inter alia the Sessions Court may direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself or by any of the Magistrate subordinate to him to make “further inquiry” into any complaint which has been dismissed, inter alia under Section 203 Cr.P.C. but in this case, the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa by the said impugned judgment dated 03.10.2019 in Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2019 has instead of directing further inquiry into the complaint in terms of Section 398 of Cr.P.C., has directed the learned Magistrate to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner and this coupled with the fact that the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa has observed that the averments of complaint, statement on solemn affirmation of the complaint coupled with the material available in the record categorically constitute ingredients of offence as alleged and there appears prima facie sufficient material for proceeding against the proposed accused of the aforesaid offence resulting in the revisional court exceeding its jurisdiction and compelling the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence without leaving any scope for the learned Magistrate to apply its own independent mind; which is requirement of law. 8. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajendra Rajoriya vs. Jagat Narain Thapak & Anr. 8. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajendra Rajoriya vs. Jagat Narain Thapak & Anr. reported in (2018) 17 SCC 234 , it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner in paragraph no.15 therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has in categorical terms held that the revisional court in the facts of that case was in error to the extent of influencing the Magistrate court to keep the findings of the Sessions Court in mind, while considering the case on remand and in this case also since the learned Sessions Judge has not directed the Magistrate to conduct any further inquiry as envisaged under Section 398 of Cr.P.C. but has influenced the Magistrate by his observation without specifically mentioning that the Magistrate ought not have influenced by his judgment has resulted in the Magistrate being left with no option but to take cognizance. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. once a cognizance of the offence of a summon case is taken, the Magistrate is left with no option but to state the particulars of the offence of which the petitioner was accused of and asking the petitioner whether he pleads guilty or has own defence to make, therefore, the erroneous cognizance order, has resulted in the learned S.D.J.M., West Singhbhum at Chaibasa being left with no alternative but to state the particulars of the offence to the petitioner. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation made against the petitioner are absolutely false and the statement made by the petitioner is true and by public good and in interest of his political party. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no case of defamation as envisaged under Section 499 of INDIAN PENAL CODE is made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajendra Rajoriya vs. Jagat Narain Thapak & Anr. 9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajendra Rajoriya vs. Jagat Narain Thapak & Anr. (supra), it is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that in paragraph no. 13 of the said Judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has in no uncertain manner observed, that Section 398 has to be read along with other sections which are equally applicable to the revision petitions filed before the Sessions Judge and Section 398 only deals with distinct power to direct further inquiry, whereas Section 397 read with Section 399 and Section 401 confers power on the revisionary authority to examine correctness, legality or propriety or any findings, sentence or order. The powers of revisionary court have to be cumulatively understood in consonance with Sections 398 , 399 and 401 Cr.P.C. 10. Therefore, it is submitted that the learned revisional court having exercised the power under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. has rightly remanded the case after setting aside the impugned order, after finding prima facie offence punishable under Section 500 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and the learned Magistrate has only quoted the portion of the judgment of the revisional court for the purpose of mentioning, as to why there was requirement for passing a fresh order and the learned Magistrate has not been influenced by the order of the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa rather the learned Magistrate has formed an independent opinion and after finding sufficient material independently has taken cognizance and has found sufficient material to proceed further against the petitioner under Section 500 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that as the particulars of the offence already being stated to the petitioner and as the petitioner has already pleaded not guilty for the same hence, it is not open for the petitioner to question the order of the revisional court in Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2019 dated 03.10.2019 or the order dated 04.02.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-cum-Special Court, M.P./M.L.A., West Singhbhum at Chaibasa. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that a coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 4241 of 2018 reported in 2024:JHHC:6642 in a similar matter of the petitioner in connection with C.P. No. 1698 of 2018 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi and in Criminal Revision No.281 of 2018 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, has held that in that case, as the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi being the revisional court has only directed the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi to reappreciate the evidence available on the record and to pass an order afresh on the point of determining prima facie material to proceed in the matter, did not find any illegality in the order dated 15.09.2018 passed the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi and the order dated 28.11.2018 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi finding the prima facie case to be true against the petitioner for having committed the offence under Section 500 of INDIAN PENAL CODE and dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition. Hence, it is submitted that as the contention of the petitioner is same and similar in this case also, therefore, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 11. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, so far as the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 regarding the judgment passed by a coordinate Bench in Cr.M.P. No. 4241 of 2018 is concerned, it is not forthcoming as to revisional court in that case, whether in categorical terms observed that there appears prima facie sufficient material for proceeding against the proposed accused person of the offence alleged. 12. Now coming to the facts of the case, as has rightly been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a settled principle of law as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph no.15 in the case of Rajendra Rajoriya vs. Jagat Narain Thapak & Anr. (supra) that a revisional court is not supposed to influence the Magistrate to keep the finding of the Sessions Court in mind, while considering the case on remand. In paragraph no.17 of the said judgment in the case of Rajendra Rajoriya vs. Jagat Narain Thapak & Anr. (supra) that a revisional court is not supposed to influence the Magistrate to keep the finding of the Sessions Court in mind, while considering the case on remand. In paragraph no.17 of the said judgment in the case of Rajendra Rajoriya vs. Jagat Narain Thapak & Anr. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India set aside the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance as it was apparent in that case that the Magistrate has observed that Sessions Court has already made out a prima facie case. 13. As already indicated above, in this case, in the order dated 04.02.2022 passed in Complaint Case No. 229 of 2021 by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-cum-Special Court, M.P./M.L.A., West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, the Special Court has both quoted the relevant portion of the order of the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa passed in Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2019 wherein the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa has inter alia recorded a categorical finding that the averments of the complaint petition, sworn affirmation of the complainant coupled with the materials available in the record categorically constitute ingredients of offence as alleged and there appears prima facie sufficient material for proceeding against the proposed accused for the said offence. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-cum-Special Court, M.P./M.L.A., West Singhbhum at Chaibasa while arriving at the conclusion that there are sufficient material to proceed further for the offence under Section 500 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE against the petitioner has taken into consideration the statement on solemn affirmation of inquiry witnesses, facts and circumstances as discussed as also the order passed in Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2019 dated 03.10.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa, so, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-cum-Special Court, M.P./M.L.A., West Singhbhum at Chaibasa was influenced by the observation made by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2019 to the effect that the material available in the record categorically constitute ingredients of offences alleged and has not independently came to the conclusion that there are sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner under Section 500 of INDIAN PENAL CODE solely on the basis of its own independent opinion. 14. 14. Perusal of the impugned judgement passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa it is crystal clear that the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa has committed two errors. Firstly, the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment in Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2019 has failed to direct further inquiry into the complaint which has been dismissed under Section 203 , as is the mandate of Section 398 of Cr.P.C. and secondly has also failed to specifically mention that the learned Magistrate ought not be influenced by the observation made by it in its judgment in Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2019. Consequently, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chaibasa failed to categorically mention that he found prima facie the material to proceed against the petitioner for having committed the said offence, independently without referring to the order passed by the revisional court; as is the requirement of law. 15. Because of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 04.02.2022 passed in Complaint Case No. 229 of 2021 is set aside. Consequently, the subsequent order dated 06.08.2025 so far relating to explaining the substance of the case to the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is also quashed and set aside. 16. The order dated 03.10.2019 passed in Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2019 is modified by remanding the Complaint Case No. 161 of 2018 to the court of Special Court, M.P./M.L.A., West Singhbhum at Chaibasa from the learned S.D.J.M., West Singhbhum at Chaibasa with a direction that if necessary after a further inquiry appropriate order be passed with regard to forming an opinion regarding the existence of a prima facie material in the record, if any, to proceed against the petitioner, reflecting its own independent application of mind by the learned S.D.J.M. to the materials placed before it, without being influenced by any observation made by this Court or the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2019. 17. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent only. 18. In view of the disposal of this criminal miscellaneous petition, interlocutory applications, pending if any, is disposed of being infructuous.