Hon’ble Yashwant Varma, J.—The applicant seeks to invoke the inherent powers of the Court conferred by Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of Complaint Case No. 382 of 2015 and an order dated 19.10.2015, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Kulpahar, Mahoba, U.P.

A. BACKGROUND FACTS

2. The record reveals that the Judicial Magistrate taking suo moto cognizance has proceeded to summon the applicant under Sections 124 A and 505 of the Penal Code. The concerned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the alleged offences on the basis of an article written by the applicant and posted on his Facebook page. The article is titled as ‘’NJAC Judgement-An Alternative View’. The Magistrate has recorded that no citizen has a right to disrespect the three pillars of our democracy namely, the Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary. He then proceeds to record that an order of a Court can be questioned only by following a procedure prescribed by law. The order then states that no person is entitled to create or generate hatred or contempt against an elected Government established by law. The Magistrate upon recording the above conclusions holds that the comments made by the applicant undoubtedly spread hatred and contempt against a duly elected Government and accordingly, in his opinion, the applicant prima facie appears to have committed offences under Section 124A and 505 I.P.C.

3. Referring to the provisions of Section190(1)(c), the Magistrate recorded that the above mentioned section of the Criminal Procedure Code conferred upon him a power to take suo moto cognizance. He then records that the power to take suo moto cognizance under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 190 of Cr.P.C. is not trammelled by the territorial jurisdiction of a Magistrate and that since the comments made by the applicant were widely published in the print and electronic media throughout the nation, it was open to a Magistrate anywhere in the country to exercise suo moto powers. He accordingly, proceeded to take cognizance under Section 190(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code and issued summons to the applicant seeking his appearance before the Court on 19 November 2015.

4. The views expressed by the applicant in the article authored by him and dated 18 October 2015 is a critique of a judgement rendered by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India, Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13 of 2015, decided on 16 October, 2015) which ruled upon the validity of the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 and the Ninety Nineth Constitutional amendment. The excerpts of the said article read as follows:

“The judgement ignores the larger constitutional structure of India. Unquestionably, independence of the judiciary is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. It needs to be preserved. But the judgement ignores the fact that there are several other features of the Constitution which comprise the basic structure. The most important basic structure of the Indian Constitution is Parliamentary democracy. The next important basic structure of the Indian Constitution is an elected Government which represents the will of the sovereign. The Prime Minister in Parliamentary democracy is the most important accountable institution. The Leader of the Opposition is an essential aspect of that basic structure representing the alternative voice in Parliament. The Law Minister represents a key basic structure of the Constitution; the Council of Ministers, which is accountable to Parliament. All these institutions, Parliamentary sovereignty, an elected Government, a Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition, Law Minister are a part of the Constitution’s basic structure. They represent the will of the people. The majority opinion was understandably concerned with one basic structure-independence of judiciary - but to rubbish all other basic structures by referring to them as “politicians” and passing the ju