Patna High Court
Laloo Prasad vs State Of Bihar And Anr. on 1 November, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997(2)BLJR997
Author: P.K. Sarin
Bench: P.K. Sarin
JUDGMENT P.K. Sarin, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 30.5.1996 passed by Judicial Magistrate, first class, Motihari, in complaint case No. C-421 of 1996, trial No. 36 of 1996 by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioner and one other co-accused for the offence punishable under Section 500, 501, 502 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. It appears that the opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint (copy at Annexure 1) alleged that in the publication of new item in Hindustan Times the present petitioner is attributed with the utterance of a word "Kukoor" for the Koeri and Kurmi castes. The opposite party No. 2 is an Advocate and is Koeri by caste. According to the allegations made in the complaint, by publication of the said news item the petitioner and his caste has been lowered down in the esteem of the society and they have been defamed and it has caused mental agony as well. In the complaint the present petitioner was made as accused No. 1 while the "Editor. The Hindustan Times, Patna, Bihar", has been named as accused No. 2. The news item in question has been filed as Annexure 1. The learned Magistrate, after examining the complainant and the four witnesses, examined on behalf of the complainant, found a prima facie case to be made out and he decided to proceed with the trial and directed the complainant to file necessary requisites (for summoning the accused). Feeling aggrieved by the said order the petitioner, who is Chief Minister of the Government of Bihar, has filed the present application for quashing the cognizance order.
5. It has been contended on behalf the petitioner that neither in the allegations made in the complaint nor in the evidence recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is any averment that the impugned utterance was made by the present petitioner in the presence of the witnesses. It is contended that there is no evidence on record to show that petitioner actually, at any time, made those utterances and the entire complaint and the evidence is only in respect of the publication made in newspaper. It is contended that the publication of any news item or article in newspaper is not sufficient to fasten any liability on the petitioner in respect of the contents of that news item or article.
6. Copies of the statement of the witnesses examined on behalf the complainant before the learned Magistrate have been filed with the supplementary affidavit. Out of four witnesses examined before the learned Magistrate, PW 4 is only formal witness. He has not deposed anything about the utterance made by the present petitioner. Rest of the three witnesses have only stated that they read the newspaper and by reading the concerned article in the newspaper they feel that they and their caste have been lowered down in the esteem of the society. Their statements how that the word "Kukoor" was not uttered by the petitioner in their presence and and they do not know before whom such utterance was made by the petitioner. Thus, it is evident that the witnesses, who have been examined, do not have any knowledge whether or not the petitioner had actually uttered the objectionable word "Kukoor" for Koeri and Kurmi caste. The entire allegations in the complaint and the statements of the witnesses are only with reference to the news item or article published in the Hindustan Times. Annexure 1 is the copy of that article. Unless it is shown that the objectionable word had been used by the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be prima facie found to have committed the offence punishable under Sections 500, 501, 502 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. A person cannot be said to have committed an offence merely because some article or news item is published attributing certain utterances to that person. If any person is made accused on the basis of a news item or article published in a newspaper that will embolden unscrupulous persons to make publication attributing certain utterances or certain acts to any person so as to implicate him in a criminal case for oblique motive. In my opinion, the allegations in the complaint or the evidence led in the case do not make out any prima facie case against the present petitioner so as to summon the petitioner to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 500, 501, 502 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. It may also be pointed out that the petitioner got a contradiction published in different newspapers denying uttering of the objectionable words. The photostat copies of such published news item have been filed as Annexures 2 to 7. Annexure 8 further show that the Director General of Information and Public Relations Department has also made a complaint against the newspaper 'Hindustan Times' before the Press Council of India for the objectionable publication made in the newspaper.
7. We are not concerned with the defence at present. We are only concerned to find out whether the evidence before the learned Magistrate was sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the petitioner so as to summon him to face trial. As already observed, no prima facie case is made out on the basis of evidence led before the learned Magistrate against the petitioner. In these circumstances taking cognizance against the present petitioner by the learned Magistrate is bad in law and cannot be sustained. It amounts to abuse of the process of court if without prima facie case having been made out a person is summoned to face trial in a criminal proceeding. The impugned cognizance order, in so far as it relates to present petitioner, is liable to be quashed. The cognizance order, as against the present petitioner only, is quashed hereby. It is made clear that the quashing of the cognizance order against the present petitioner would not mean quashing the cognizance order against other co-accused as he is Editor of the newspaper which had published the objectionable article.