Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
S. C. MUTALIK, J.
Shaukatali Ibrahim Rangrez and others, Petitioners
versus
Mohommad Siraj and another, Respondents.
Criminal Appln. No. 169 of 1996,
Decided on : 11 -7 -1996.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION - BOMBAY PREVENTION OF EX-COMMUNICATION ACT, 1949 - SECTION 4 - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - SECTIONS 499, 500 - JURISDICTION - DEFAMATION - PUBLICATION - OFFENCE OF DEFAMATION - COURT OF JURISDICTION - BOMBAY PREVENTION OF EX-COMMUNICATION ACT, 1949 - SECTION 6(B) - COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCE - PREVIOUS SANCTION - REQUIREMENT.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a respectable member of the Rangrez community, alleged that the petitioners, also members of the community, threatened him with ex-communication and uttered defamatory words against him, causing harm to his reputation and social standing. The complainant approached the Collector for permission to initiate legal proceedings, which was granted. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani, issued process against the petitioners, prompting them to file a criminal application to quash the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani, had jurisdiction to try the complaint and the offenses complained of against the petitioners. The court relied on precedents establishing that in cases of defamation, the court where the alleged defamatory statement was made or where the consequence of the statement (such as publication) occurred has jurisdiction to try the offense. The court also noted that the complainant had obtained the necessary previous sanction from the Collector, as required under Section 6(b) of the Bombay Prevention of Ex-Communication Act, 1949.
Issues: 1. Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani, had jurisdiction to try the complaint and the offenses complained of against the petitioners? 2. Whether the complainant had obtained the necessary previous sanction from the Collector, as required under Section 6(b) of the Bombay Prevention of Ex-Communication Act, 1949?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on precedents establishing that in cases of defamation, the court where the alleged defamatory statement was made or where the consequence of the statement (such as publication) occurred has jurisdiction to try the offense. In this case, the alleged defamatory statements were made in Parbhani and the consequences of those statements (such as the complainant's lowered social standing) also occurred in Parbhani, giving the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani, jurisdiction to try the case. 2. The court noted that the complainant had obtained the necessary previous sanction from the Collector, as required under Section 6(b) of the Bombay Prevention of Ex-Communication Act, 1949, which was a prerequisite for initiating legal proceedings in this case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioners' criminal application, upholding the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani, to issue process against them. The court directed the parties to remain present in the trial court on the specified date.
2. By granting Rule, the matter is taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned advocate for the parties.
3. The present criminal application is filed by the petitioners-original accused in RCC No. 1542/95 for quashing the order of issue of process passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani on 22-9-95.
4. The complainant in the private complaint has alleged that he is a respectable person of Rangrez community and is working as electrical contractor. He belongs to Rajasthani Muslim Rangrez Biradari Dakkhan (Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh). Right from the beginning, his fore-fathers started using the surname Rangrez. He belongs to Muslim community and following the traditions laid down by Islam. It is further contended that he has built up his own reputation in the town and society. He is known as sportsman and active social worker and has participated in various cultural activities. He is further rendering services to the community in Parbhani District.
5. He was also appointed as a head of the District of his community from 1990 to 1995 and it was so decided in the meeting of the community which took place on 23rd and 24th September 1990. Original accused Nos. 13 and 14 i.e. Abdul Mazeed Maula Baksh Rangrez and Abdul Wahab s/o Abdul Gani Rangrez also belong to his community and they are resident of Parbhani. The complainant's social standing in his community was not liked by original accused Nos. 13 and 14. They approached the complainant on 2-6-1995 at Parbhani along with some other persons and threatened him that his whole family would be ex-communicated from Rangrez Biradari. They uttered these words in loud insulting tone, so that persons residing in the vicinity should hear the same. They further threatened him that he should not attend the general meeting of the community which was to be held at Kopargaon on 3rd and 4th June 1995. Because of the utterances of original accused Nos. 13 and 14, his prestige in the community was lowered down. According to the invitation received by him in respect of the meeting which was to be held on 3rd and 4th June 1995, he went to Kopargaon. There was a sudden pronouncement by all the accused that the complainant who was then the head of Parbhani District of Rangrez community has been ex-communicated and expelled from the community. It is further contended that the utterances of all the accused hurt his feeling and also social reputation in the society. After he returned to Parbhani, he could see that his image in his community was lowered. His younger son by name Mohd. Kamal Naser was already engaged with the daughter of one Mohd. Hanif of Nandurbar and the marriage ceremony was to be commenced in near future. However, because of the resolution of ex-communication, and the illegal activities of the accused, the marriage was held-up. Thus, according to him all the accused have committed an offence punishable under S. 4 of Bombay Prevention of Ex-communication Act, 1949 as well as under Ss. 499 and 500 of the IPC. Before lodging the complaint, he approached the Collector, Parbhani for obtaining previous sanction and he is permitted to initiate legal proceeding against them. In the verification the complainant has reiterated all the allegations made in the complaint.
6. The learned trial Judge after going through the contents of the complaint and verification found that there are sufficient grounds prima facie to issue process against all the accused (present petitioners) and thus passed the impugned order on 22-9-95. The same is challenged by filing the present criminal application.
7. Shri Darak, learned advocate for petitioners submitted that especially when the meeting took place on 3rd and 4th June 1995, at Kopargaon, where so-called res
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
