Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The petitioner further contended that in the absence of prima facie material, registration of crime against him at the instance of respondent No.4 is nothing but abuse of process of law, consequently the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.

The specific contention of the petitioner is that Section 188 of I.P.C. deals with disobedience of an order duly promulgated by the public servant. Section 188 of I.P.C. applies when there is wilful disobedience of an order promulgated by a public servant. In the instant case it was not mentioned in the complaint whether there is any order passed by any public servant much less it was not mentioned that the petitioner disobeyed the same, on this ground the proceedings against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 188 of I.P.C. are liable to be quashed. (2014) 8 SCC 273 MSM,J WP_8890_2020 Further, Section 505 (2) of I.P.C. deals with punishment for making, publishing or circulating any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities. But, in the instant case the audio clip which was the basis for prosecution is an opinion expressed by one person to another person relating to functioning of office of Hon'ble Chief Minister; as such it does not constitute offence punishable under Section 505 (2) of I.P.C.

The first and foremost contention of the petitioner before this Court is that the allegations made in the complaint lodged by respondent No.4 with respondent No.3 do not constitute any of the offences, more particularly the offence punishable under Section 505 (2) and 506 of I.P.C. so also under Section 188 of I.P.C. and Section 54 of the Disaster Management Act, besides raising other contention with regard to illegality in registration of crime for the offence punishable under Section 188 of I.P.C. and under Section 54 of the Disaster Management Act.

On close analysis of the compliant, the allegations made in it do not constitute an offence punishable under Section 506 of I.P.C. Therefore, the very registration of crime against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 506 of I.P.C. is abuse of process of law. On this ground, the Court can quash the proceedings against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 506 of I.P.C.

Section 188 of I.P.C. deals with punishment for disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant. Here, there is absolutely nothing to show an ordinance was promulgated by any public servant and it is in force in the area where respondent No.4 resided. However, there is a clear bar under Section 195 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C. from taking cognizance by the police.

Applying the said principles to the present facts of the case, I find that the allegations made in the complaint on their face value do not constitute any of the offences punishable under Sections 505 (2) and 506 of I.P.C. and under Section 188 of I.P.C., besides that registration of crime against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 188 of I.P.C. is in violation of Section 195 (1) (a) (i) of Cr.P.C. Similarly, registration of crime for the offence punishable under Section 54 of the Disaster Management Act is in violation of Section 60 of the Disaster Management Act. Consequently, I am of the considered view that the registration of crime against the petitioner for the offences (referred supra) is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (a) and 21 of the Constitution of India.