D.K. Sinha, J. Petitioner has invoked the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:

(a) Issue an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) in the nature of certiorari setting aside the impugned order dated 30.9.2008 passed in Complaint Case No.C/1-354/08 by Shri A.K. Tiwary, learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur.

(b) Issue an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or directions(s) declaring the proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, post cognizance, as being without jurisdiction.

(c) Issue an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or directions(s) directing the learned Trial Court at Jamshedpur to follow the mandate of Section 210 of Cr.P.C. and to call for a status report from the Vikroli Police Station, Mumbai, Maharashtra in connection with Cr. No.29 of 2008 and in the mean time stay the further proceedings in compliant case No.C/1-354/08 pending in the Court of Shri A.K. Tiwary, Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur to the appropriate Court at Mumbai, Maharashtra for amalgamation/tagging the instant compliant case with the Police Case.

And

(d) During the pendency of this writ petition, the proceedings in Compliant Case No.C/1-354/08 pending in the Court of Shri A.K. Tiwary, Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur be stayed;

And

(e) During the pendency of this writ petition, the execution of non bailable warrant in terms of order dated 30th September, 2008 be stayed;

And

(f) Pass such other writ(s), order(s), directions(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The brief fact of the case as stands narrated in the complaint filed by respondent No.2 Hamid Raza Khan before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No.C/1-354/08 was that the accused writ petitioner herein was the President of a political party named as Maharashtra Navnirman Sena, who in a public meeting on 31.1.2008 passed remarks against the Hindus in relation to a festival known as “Chhath” causing hurt to the religious feelings of Hindus and thereby outraged the feelings of the people of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Jharkhand within the territory of India. According to the complainant-respondent No.2 Hamid Raza Khan, celebration of “Chhath” festival has been cultural and religious belief and that the petitioner by his statements warned the North Indians, especially the Biharis that they would not be allowed to celebrate the holy festival “Chhath” in Maharashtra which created disharmony on account of his aggravated parochial feelings. Such statement was alleged to have been delivered with an intention which was likely to cause fear and alarm to the people of North-Eastern region by inducing his party men to commit offence against public tranquility and waging war against the Government of India by creating disturbance in the country. Statement of the complainant was recorded on 6.3.2008 on solemn affirmation whereby though he corroborated his earlier allegation against the petitioner as made in the complaint petition but, according to learned counsel, the complainant made substantial improvement/exaggeration beyond what was stated in the complaint to the extent that the petitioner had given call in the said meeting that the people of outside living in Maharashtra had no right to stay there and that the people from Bihar, Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh should be driven out.

3. To substantiate the allegation as levelled in the complaint, respondent-complainant produced and examined as many as three witnesses in course of enquiry of the allegation under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the statement of all the three witnesses produced on behalf of the complainant that they also made development in their statements during enquiry beyond what was alleged by the complainant.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that th