Jharkhand High Court
Arun Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand ..... Opposite ... on 17 October, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1367 of 2023
1.Arun Kumar Singh, S/o Rishdeo Mahto, aged about 50 years, R/o RZ/C-3 181-B, Second Floor, Mahavir Enclave , Gurudwara Road, P.O.- Palam, P.S.- Dabri, South West, Dist.- New Delhi, PIN -110045
2. Hitesh Shankar, S/o Uday Shankar, aged about 47, EG- 26, 3rd Floor, Inderpuri, P.O. & P.S.- Inderpuri, Dist.- South West, New Delhi, PIN- 110012 ...... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party For the Petitioners : Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Adv.
Ms. Kumari Ranjana Singh, Adv.
Mr. Diwakar Jha, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar , Addl. PP
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing First Information Report including the investigation in connection with Mahuadanr P.S. No. 88 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 153A/295A/500/ 34 of the IPC, pending in the court of learned SDJM, Latehar.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the informant lodged written report with the officer-in-charge, Mahuadanr Police Station, contending that he is the Principal of St. Joseph plus two school, Mahuadanr, which is a government post for several years. On 18.09.2022, a cover story was published in the Magazine "Panchjanya" of which, the petitioner no. 2 is the Editor and the article was written by the petitioner no. 1, in which, baseless allegations were made against the informant for the purpose of 1 Cr.M.P. No. 1367 of 2023 inciting violence between the persons of two groups of two different communities and the said article was also circulated through WhatsApp. It is alleged that the said magazine has published the article to defame the informant intentionally for the purpose of inciting communal violence. The copy of the article has been annexed with the written report and the same relates to fixing of boards locally known as "Pathalgarhi" in several villages of Mahuadanr sub-division in the district of Latehar. In the said article, it has been mentioned that several persons of Hindu community on the condition of anonymity, have intimated that the informant is instigating others for boycotting the Hindus. It is also alleged that the informant is a Priest in a Church and on a Sunday, he convened a meeting in the Church and told the persons, who went to Church that since some Hindu workers are working against Christians in Mahuadanr, hence, no Christian should purchase any article from the five shops, the names of which has been mentioned in the Article and as a consequence, no Christian is purchasing any article from the said five shops. It has also been mentioned in the Article, with the name of a particular Hindu shop owner that he had beg apology by going to the Church from important persons there and only after that, the Christians started purchasing articles from his shop. It is also mentioned that because of such boycott, one bus owned by a Hindu, has to stop its service, in the locality. On the basis of the written report of the informant, the police registered Mahuadanr P.S. No. 88 of 2022 and the investigation is going on.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Patricia Mukhim vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors. reported in (2021) 15 SCC 35, in para 8 of which, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution is a very valuable fundamental right, of course, the right is not absolute.
2 Cr.M.P. No. 1367 of 20235. It is next submitted that in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed as under in para 10 :-
"10. The gist of the offence under Section 153-AIPC is the intention to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of people. The intention has to be judged primarily by the language of the piece of writing and the circumstances in which it was written and published. The matter complained of within the ambit of Section 153-A must be read as a whole. One cannot rely on strongly worded and isolated passages for proving the charge nor indeed can one take a sentence here and a sentence there and connect them by a meticulous process of inferential reasoning [Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 5 SCC 1 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 417] . (Emphasis supplied)
6. It is next submitted that in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para 11 of that case has also referred to its judgment in the case of Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P. reported in 1997 (7) SCC 431 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed that mens rea is a necessary ingredient for the offence under Section 153 A and section 505 (2) of the Indian Penal Code and that merely inciting the feelings of one community or group without any reference to any other community or group cannot attract two sections. It is next submitted that in para 11 of the case of Patricia Mukhim vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has also referred to its judgments in the case of Ramesh v. Union of India reported in 1988 1 SCC 668 wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that words used in the alleged criminal speech should be judged from the standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous men and not those of weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point of view and that the standard of an ordinary reasonable man or as they say in English law "the man on the top of a Clapham omnibus" should be applied.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners by quoting the para 14 of the said judgment, which reads as under :
14. India is a plural and multicultural society. The promise of liberty, enunciated in the Preamble, manifests itself in various provisions which outline each citizen's rights;
they include the right to free speech, to travel freely and settle (subject to such reasonable restrictions that may be validly enacted) throughout the length and breadth of India. At times, when in the legitimate exercise of such a right, individuals travel, settle down or carry on a vocation in a place where they find conditions conducive, there may be resentments, especially if such citizens prosper, leading to hostility or possibly violence. In such instances, if the victims voice their discontent, and speak out, especially if the State authorities turn a blind eye, or drag 3 Cr.M.P. No. 1367 of 2023 their feet, such voicing of discontent is really a cry for anguish, for justice denied -- or delayed. This is exactly what appears to have happened in this case." (Emphasis supplied) submits that in the said article it has also been mentioned that some day before, one meeting was called in Mahuatanr and all in unison, opposed the anti-Hindu activities of the Church and thereafter, the "Pathalgarhi" was done. The villagers protested the "Pathalgarhi" and the administration has removed the said board. The people associated with the Church became enraged and put locks on the residences and offices of the police administration and other administrative officers and pressurized them to fix the boards again. Their houses remained locked for one day. The officers had to enter into their residences through the back door but even after that, no action was taken against the persons, who put the locks in the houses of the police officers and other administrative officers and this apathy of the administration, enraged the Hindus and submits that the article only is primarily indicates the time for anguish and denial of justice, of the local people, which was directed against the local administration for not taking action against the culprits who prohibit entry of several villager by putting the board of Pathalgarhi and the same is in legitimate exercise of rights of freedom of free speech but neither any mens rea for inciting the communal tension is present nor any intention is there to instigate communal conflict nor is there any intention to instigate any communal conflict.
8. It is next submitted that the FIR is designed to stifle the right to free speech of the petitioners being the citizens of this country by implicating them in criminal case even though such speech does not have the tendency to affect the public.
9. It is further submitted that the offence punishable under Section 295A of IPC is also not made out against the petitioner, as no insult has been made to any religion nor the religious feeling of any class of citizens of India has been outraged.
10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC is concerned, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners 4 Cr.M.P. No. 1367 of 2023 that for such offence only a complaint can be instituted and not an FIR.
11. It is next submitted that petitioners being the eminent journalists have contributed significantly to the nation with their work for over two and half decades. It is next submitted that the informant indulged in conversion of tribal and members of other communities and the said facts have been reported on several occasions in newspaper and he used to compel the members of other communities by directing the Christian people of the locality not to purchase anything from the shops of the members of other communities and not to pay their dues , if anything has been taken on credit, just to pressurize the people of other community to embrace Christianity and in support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners draws attention of the court to the two newspaper cuttings which have been annexed as Annexure 2 series.
12. It is lastly submitted that the continuation of this FIR against the petitioners, will amount to abuse of process of law, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.
13. Learned Addl. P.P., the other hand, vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners and submits that in para 44 of the Case Diary, there is reference to the supervision note of the Superintendent of Police wherein, the Superintendent of Police has inter alia directed for obtaining the sanction for prosecution from the authority, hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.
14. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Balwant Singh and Another vs. State Of Punjab reported 1995 3 SCC 214 that the intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence is 5 Cr.M.P. No. 1367 of 2023 the sine qua non for the commission of offence under Section 153 A IPC.
15. Now coming to the facts of the case, after going through the entire said alleged incriminating article, it is found that the only allegation made against the informant is that the informant indulged in instigating the members of the Christian community to stop purchase the articles from the shops of the other community and also not to pay their dues of the articles, where were taken on credit. The undisputed fact remains that the matter has been reported in newspapers.
16. After going through the materials in the record, this court is of the considered view that on reading of the entire piece of writing and the circumstances, in which it was written and published, they do not show having any tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order or affect public tranquility that the law use to step in to prevent such an activity rather the article expresses cry for anguish for the acts committed by the informant in inciting the members of a particular religion, for boycotting the shops and businesses of members of other religions.
17. Under such circumstance, this Court is of the considered view that even though the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 153A of IPC is not made out.
18. So far as the offence punishable under Section 295A of IPC is concerned, the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Sections 295A are as follows :-
(i) the accused insulted or attempted to insult the religion or religious feeling of any class of persons of India by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations,
(ii) The accused did so (a) deliberately (b) maliciously and
(c) intentionally, in order to outrage the religious feelings of that class of citizens.6 Cr.M.P. No. 1367 of 2023
19. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no material in the record to suggest that the accused ever insulted or attempted to insult the religion or religious feeling of any class or person of India and in the absence of that, this court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Sections 295 A of IPC is not made out.
20. So far as the offence punishable under Sections 500 of the IPC is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Subramanian Swamy vs. Union Of India, Ministry of Law reported in 2016 Criminal Law Journal 3214 that since Section 199 of the CrPC envisages the filing of a complaint in court, in a case of criminal defamation, neither any FIR can be filed nor can any direction be issued under Section 156 (3) of CrPC for the same. So certainly, in view of Section 199 of the CrPC, an FIR cannot be filed for criminal defamation, the punishment for which, has been provided in Section 500 of the IPC.
21. In view of the discussions made above, this court is of the considered view that the continuation of the FIR and the connected investigation against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law, hence, this is a fit case where First Information Report including investigation in connection with Mahuadanr P.S. No. 88 of 2022 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners.
22. Accordingly, First Information Report including investigation in connection with Mahuadanr P.S. No. 88 of 2022 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners.
23. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 17th October, 2024 Smita /AFR 7 Cr.M.P. No. 1367 of 2023