SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 436

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Hari Nandan Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 683 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 452 of 2024)
Decided On : 11-02-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. A. Sirajudeen, Sr. Adv. Ms. Arya Kumari, Adv. Ms. Divya Singhvi, Adv. Mr. Pardeep Gupta, Adv. Mr. Parinav Gupta, Adv. Mrs. Mansi Gupta, Adv. Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Standing Counsel, Adv. Mr. Shiv Ram Sharma, Adv. Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Venkat Narayan, Adv. Mr. Beenu Sharma, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Assault and insult of public servant with intent to provoke breach of peace – Calling someone “Pakistani” does not amount to hurting religious sentiments.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 353, 298 and 504 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 132, 302 and 352] – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 227, 228 and 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 250, 251 and 528] – Assault and insult of public servant with intent to provoke breach of peace – Refusal to quash criminal case – Essential ingredients of offences alleged against appellant under Sections 353, 298, and 504 IPC are not made out – There was no assault or use of force by appellant to attract Section 353 IPC – High Court ought to have discharged appellant under Section 353 IPC – Appellant is accused of hurting religious feelings of informant by calling him “Miyan-Tiyan” and “Pakistani” – Statements made are in poor taste – However, it does not amount to hurting religious sentiments of informant – Appellant shall also be discharged under Section 298 IPC – Additionally, appellant cannot be charged under Section 504 IPC, as there was no act on his part that could have provoked breach of peace and accordingly, deserves to be discharged under Section 504 IPC as well – Appellant discharged from all three offences alleged against him. (Paras 19 and 20)

Facts of the case:

Being aggrieved by order dated 28.08.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Petition No.1094/2023, by which petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure with prayers to quash criminal proceedings including order dated 06.07.2021 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro and the order dated 24.03.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bokaro was dismissed and validity of said orders were sustained by High Court, appellant is before this Court.

Findings of Court:

In the circumstances, we set aside order of High Court which has sustained order of Trial Court and consequently, allow application filed by appellant herein and discharge appellant from all three offences alleged against him.

Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

(B.V. Nagarathna, J.)

Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 28.08.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Petition No.1094/2023, by which the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”) with the prayers to quash the criminal proceedings including the order dated 06.07.2021 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro and the order dated 24.03.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bokaro was dismissed and the validity of the said orders were sustained by the High Court, the appellant is before this Court.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that a F.I.R. was registered at Bokaro Sector-IV P.S. Case No. 140 of 2020, based on a complaint by the informant, who was posted as an Urdu Translator and Acting Clerk (Right to Information) in the Sub-Divisional Office, Chas. The informant alleged that the appellant herein had sought certain information from the Additional Collector-cum-First Appellate Authority, Bokaro, and the said information was dispatched to him. However, the appellant subsequently filed an appeal before the Additional Collector-cum-First Appellate Authority, allegedly after manipulating the documents sent to him by the office through registered post and making false allegations of manipulation in the documents.

4. In light of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer- cum-Public Information Officer, Chas, the Additional Collector- cum-First Appellate Authority directed the informant to personally serve the information to the appellant. Consequently, on 18.11.2020, at about 01:20 P.M., the informant, accompanied by the messenger of the Sub- Divisional Office, Chas, visited the appellant’s residence to hand over the information. The appellant initially refused to accept the documents but, upon insistence by the informant, eventually accepted them. However, he allegedly abused the informant by referring to his religion and used criminal force against him while he was discharging his official duties, with the intention of intimidating and deterring him from performing his duties as a public servant.

5. The informant subsequently reported the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas, who, upon oral direction, instructed the lodging of the F.I.R., leading to the registration of Bokaro Sector-IV P.S. Case No. 140 of 2020 against the appellant. After completing the investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 298, 504, 506, 353, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”).

6. Upon examining the materials collected during the investigation, by order dated 08.07.2021, the learned Magistrate took cognisance of the said offences and summoned the appellant.

7. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an application for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. By order dated 24.03.2022, the learned Magistrate held that there was sufficient material available on record for framing charges against the appellant under Sections 353, 298, and 504 of the IPC. However, the learned Magistrate further held that there was lack of evidence for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 406 IPC.

8. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred criminal revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Bokaro and the same was dismissed by order dated 20.02.2023. Thereafter, the appellant approached the High Court by filing Cr. M.P No. 1094 of 2023 seeking to quash the entire criminal proceedings against the appellant including the orders dated 08.07.2021, 24.03.2022 and 20.02.2023. By impugned order dated 28.08.2023, the High Court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the appellant. Hence this instant appeal.

9. For ease of reference, the relevant portions of the complaint could be extracted as under;

    “5. That in view of compliance of the above order of the Sub-Divisional Officer- cum-Public Information Officer, Chas, to make the information material available persona

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top