Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Advocates :

For the Petitioner : Dr. Subramanian Swamy, petitioner in person, Mr. B.K. Mahajan, Mr. S. Sabharwal and Mr. R. Chakroborty, Advocates For the Respondents no. 1 : Mr. K. Goswami, Senior Government Advocate and Ms. M. Barman, Junior Government Advocate, Government of Assam For the Respondent no. 2 : Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, Senior Advocate Mr. A. Ahmed, Advocate Date of hearing : 11.11.2021 Date of judgment : 09.12.2021 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY JUDGMENT & ORDER By this writ petition, the petitioner has invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India of this Court seeking setting aside and quashing of the criminal proceeding instituted against him by a complaint case, C.R. Case no. 188/2015, initially instituted before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate [Sadar], Karimganj, Assam and after being transferred from the said Court, presently pending before the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj, Assam. The petitioner has also sought setting aside and quashing of various orders passed in the said criminal proceeding including an order dated 18.03.2015 and an order dated 01.06.2015. By the order dated 18.03.2015, the learned Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj upon receipt of the complaint, took cognizance of the offences under Sections 153/153A/295A/298 of the Indian Penal Code ['IPC' and/or 'the Penal Code'] and issued process [summons] against the petitioner for his appearance as the sole accused person before the Court on 06.05.2015. By the subsequent order dated 01.06.2015, the learned Counsel of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj issued non-bailable warrant of arrest [NBWA] against the petitioner.

3. It transpires that pursuant to institution of the complaint case, C.R. Case no. 188/2015, the petitioner had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by a writ petition, Writ Petition [Criminal] no. 69/2015 [Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law and others]. When the said petition came up for hearing on 02.07.2015, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while issuing notice, made it clear that the grievances raised with regard to the specific cases registered under different jurisdictions may be agitated by the petitioner, if so advised, by instituting appropriate proceedings before the competent court, including the jurisdictional High Court[s] within a period of 6 [six] weeks. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had stayed the execution of non-bailable warrants, as might have been issued against the petitioner, for the said period of 6 [six] weeks. It was also made clear in the order that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India did not express any opinion on the merits of the specific cases instituted against the petitioner. Pursuant to the said order dated 02.07.2015, the present writ petition was filed on 17.07.2015. This Court by an order dated 24.07.2015 while issuing Rule and calling for the records, had stayed the impugned orders including the order dated 18.03.2015, and the further proceedings in respect of the complaint case, C.R. Case no. 188/2015.

4. Heard Dr. Subramanian Swamy, petitioner in person, assisted by Mr. B.K. Mahajan, Mr. S. Sabharwal and Mr. R. Chakroborty, learned counsel. Also heard Mr. K. Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate & Ms. M. Barman, learned Junior Government Advocate for the respondent no. 1, State of Assam and Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 - complainant.

I have carefully gone through the contents of the statement made in the complaint petition.

I have also perused the news items published in several newspapers, which are in vernacular in Bengali language. The complainant has furnished the copies of several newspapers with this complaint petition.

Heard learned counsel for the complainant.

The complaint petition is in writing and as such under Section 2[d] of the Code of CrPC, the recording of statement of the complainant under Section 200, CrPC is not necessary. Upon perusal of the complaint petition and the news item published in several newspapers, there appears sufficient grounds of offence u/s 153/153[A]/295A/298 IPC and as such cognizance is taken and accordingly against the accused Sri Subramanian Swamy.