FIR impermissible for defamation without aggrieved person's complaint; political statement calling family 'born looters' lacks mens rea for promoting enmity, provocation for breach of peace, or incitement to public mischief; proceedings quashed as abuse of process.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the parties.

2. Though, notice has validly been served upon the opposite party no.2 yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in spite of repeated calls.

3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No.196 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 153-A, 500, 504 & 505 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.

4. The brief fact of the case is that the informant has submitted a written report to the Officer-in-charge of Ramgarh Police Station alleging therein that the petitioner being the leader of the BJP and the State President of BJP has made a statement that “Soren Family are the born looters since their birth”. It is alleged that the said statement was made against the leaders of the petitioner namely Sibu Soren and Hemant Soren.

5. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant police registered Ramgarh P.S. Case No.196 of 2023 and took up investigation of the case.

6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation of the case is still going on and charge sheet has not yet been submitted.

7. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S. Khushboo vs. Kanniammal & Another reported in (2010) 5 SCC 600 and submits that in para-37 of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated that in respect of the offence of defamation, Section 199 CrPC mandates that the Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence only upon receiving a complaint by a person who is aggrieved and this limitation on the power to take cognizance of defamation serves the rational purpose of discouraging the filing of frivolous complaints which would otherwise clog the Magistrate’s Court.

8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner next submits that an FIR that too by a person other than the person aggrieved is not maintainable in respect of the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. In this respect, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law & Others reported in (2016) 7 SCC 221 and submits that in para-207 of which the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has in no uncertain manner held that Section 199 of CrPC envisages filing of a complaint in court. In case of criminal defamation neither can any FIR be filed nor can any direction be issued under Section 156(3) of CrPC, hence, it is submitted that FIR in respect of offence punishable under of the Indian Penal Code is not maintainable.

9. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Manzar Sayeed Khan vs. State of Maharashtra & Another with allied cases reported in (2007) 5 SCC 1 and submits that in para-16 of which it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that in respect of the offence punishable under Section 153-A of IPC, the prosecution has to prove prima facie the existence of mens rea on the part of the accused and