Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Nishikant Dubey S/o Shri Radhey Shyam Dubey – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. M.P. Nos. 3090, 3091, 3100, 3246 of 2022
Decided On : 12-01-2024
[CRIMINAL LAW] - [OFFENCES UNDER IPC] - [Sections 188, 171C, 171F, 171G, 182, 504, 506, 505(1), 116 of IPC; Section 195 of CrPC] - [The court analyzed the applicability of various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) regarding the FIRs against the petitioner. It emphasized that for offences under Section 188 IPC, a written complaint from the concerned public servant is mandatory as per Section 195 CrPC. The court found that the FIRs did not establish the necessary elements of the alleged offences, particularly the lack of a promulgated order that was disobeyed. The court concluded that the FIRs were not maintainable and quashed them, highlighting the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in criminal law.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Member of Parliament, faced multiple FIRs alleging various offences under the IPC related to his social media posts during an election period. The allegations included disobedience to public orders, undue influence, and making false statements, among others. The FIRs were filed by public servants in response to the petitioner's tweets, which were claimed to violate election conduct rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the FIRs did not substantiate the allegations against the petitioner. It determined that there was no evidence of a promulgated order that the petitioner disobeyed, which is essential for establishing an offence under Section 188 IPC. The court also noted that the other alleged offences were not made out based on the contents of the FIRs.
Issues: The primary issues were whether the FIRs were maintainable given the requirements of Section 195 of the CrPC, and whether the allegations in the FIRs constituted offences under the IPC as claimed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for offences under Section 188 IPC, a written complaint from the concerned public servant is necessary for the court to take cognizance. The absence of such a complaint rendered the FIRs invalid. Additionally, the court emphasized that the allegations did not meet the legal thresholds required to establish the claimed offences.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIRs against the petitioner, concluding that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. All these four criminal miscellaneous petitions have arisen out of four different F.I.Rs. in which the petitioner of all the four criminal miscellaneous petitions is the accused person.
3. Cr.M.P. No. 3246 of 2022 relates to Devipur P.S. Case No. 179 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Section 188/171F/171G/506 of the Indian Penal Code. The Block Development Officer, Devipur, in the District of Deoghar is the informant of this case. The allegation made in this FIR is that on 11.04.2021, the petitioner being the Hon’ble Member of Parliament made a posting on twitter alleging that no action is being taken in the matter of blockade (jam) held by the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha within Madhupur Assembly Constituency Area but threatening of instituting false case is being given to BJP. The informant-Abhay Kumar being the Block Development Officer clarified in the F.I.R. that the blockade (jam) was made by unknown persons on the Devipur-Ranchi Main Road in connection of which an F.I.R. has been lodged in the local police station. The blockade (jam) was not arranged by the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha and the allegation that no F.I.R. has been registered is not true. So far as the allegation of threatening to institute false case against the BJP, it was clarified by the informant that on 08.04.2021 in several newspapers advertisement has been published in violation of the directions and conditions of the Chief Election Commissioner, hence the Hon’ble Member of Parliament has violated the Law and upon the same, Devipur P.S. Case No. 179 of 2021 has been registered.
4. Cr.M.P. No. 3090 of 2022 relates to the F.I.R. of Chitra P.S. Case No. 59 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Section 171C/171F/171G/182/188/504 & 505(1) of the Indian Penal Code. The same has been lodged on the written report submitted by the Block Development Officer, Sarath in the District of Deoghar. It has been alleged therein that the petitioner being the Hon’ble Member of Parliament on 18.03.2021 in his own twitter made a twit, the photocopies of which were annexed to the F.I.R. and on the oral direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar to lodge the F.I.R. in accordance with law, the same has been lodged by the informant-Pallavi Sinha, Block Development Officer, Sarath in the District of Deoghar. Perusal of the twit reveals that the petitioner allegedly posted a paper cutting showing that a demonstration was done in violation of the Model Code of Conduct by the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha and commented that in the District of Deoghar despite the model code of conduct, demonstrations are being made in utter violation of the same, hence the Election Commissioner should take action against the Deputy Commissioner and other officers. On the basis of the same, Chitra P.S. Case No. 59 of 2021 has been registered alleging commission of the offences punishable under Section 171C/171F/171G/182/188/504/505(1) of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Cr.M.P. No. 3091 of 2022 relates to the F.I.R. being Madhupur P.S. Case No. 119 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Section 116/188/506/171F of the Indian Penal Code wherein the Block Development Officer, Madhupur in the District of Deoghar has alleged that on 15.04.2021, the twitter post was made to circulate the information amongst the voters that the person who posted the twitter post was assembled in front of the house of Dr. Irfan Ansari, the Hon’ble Member of Legislative Assembly, Jamtara for hours to contest Dr. Irfan Ansari. The provisions for food and drinks were made by the senior workers of the BJP but it was found out that Dr. Irfan Ansari was an absconder. The said posting of the petitioner- being the Hon’ble Member of Parliament, created a communal disharmony amongst the voters and an attempt was made to develop a confrontation. It is alleged that thus the Hon’ble Member of Parliament has committed the offences punishable under Section
The court established that for offences under Section 188 IPC, a written complaint from the concerned public servant is mandatory, and without it, the FIRs cannot be maintained. Furthermore, the cour....
The investigation of a non-cognizable offence without the order of a Magistrate is illegal, and politically motivated prosecutions should be quashed.
Cognizance of offences under Section 188 IPC requires a written complaint from the concerned public servant, and not a police report; failure to adhere to this renders proceedings void.
The registration of FIR under Section 188 IPC without a written complaint from the concerned public servant is impermissible and renders the proceedings void ab initio.
Procedural requirements for non-cognizable offenses and the interpretation of the alleged offense under Sections 290 of IPC and 75(1)(c) of Tamil Nadu City Police Act,1888.
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
