Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
Arindam Lodh, J.
Padma Mohan Jamatia - Appellant
Vs.
Jharna Das Baidya Wife of Shri. Koushik Baidya - Respondent
Crl. Rev. Pet. 87 of 2017
Decided On : 28-03-2019
Criminal Intimidation - Speech by Member of Parliament - Sections 153(a), 153(b), 504, 505 and 506 of IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 506 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the elements of intentional insult and provocation required to constitute the offence of criminal intimidation. The court also examined the requirements of obtaining sanction under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for prosecuting a public servant, and the scope of official duty in relation to the offence.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a complaint against a Member of Parliament for delivering a speech threatening opposition party workers. The court examined whether the speech attracted the provisions of Section 506 of IPC and whether obtaining sanction under Section 196 of CrPC was necessary.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the speech did not meet the requirements of intentional insult and provocation necessary for criminal intimidation under Section 506 of IPC. It also held that obtaining sanction under Section 196 of CrPC was not necessary as the respondent was not discharging official duties at the time of the speech.
Issues: The issues involved were whether the speech constituted criminal intimidation under Section 506 of IPC and whether obtaining sanction under Section 196 of CrPC was necessary for prosecuting a public servant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the speech did not meet the requirements of intentional insult and provocation necessary for criminal intimidation under Section 506 of IPC. It also ruled that obtaining sanction under Section 196 of CrPC was not necessary as the respondent was not discharging official duties at the time of the speech.
Final Decision: The criminal revision petition was dismissed, affirming the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur, Gomati District.
Arindam Lodh, J.
The present criminal revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 16.12.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gomati, Udaipur in case No. CR(CC)21 of 2017 wherein the learned Court has dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for taking cognizance of the offence committed under Sections 153(a), 153(b), 504, 505 and 506 of IPC.
2. The facts, in a nutshell, are that one Sri Padma Mohan Jamatia filed a complaint petition under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the accused-respondent, Smt. Jharna Das Baidya that she, being a Member of Parliament and leader of the CPI (M) party, had delivered certain speech on 30.11.2017 at Karbuk under Gomati district. It has been alleged in the complaint that in the said speech, the accused-respondent threatened by stating, that after the 2018 assembly elections were over, the president of State BJP, Sri Biplab Deb and its Chief Campaigner, Sri Sunil Deodhar would not be in the State but the BJP party workers, being the people of the State, would remain in the State and they would have to face dire consequences.
3. The complainant has further stated that during her speech the said respondent also made some provocating remarks in the following terms:
"restrictions on speech by our workers have already been lifted. If restrictions on our arms are also removed then IPFT and BJP workers will not be spared. We have flags, we have sticks too. After the 2018 assembly elections is over, Sunil Deodhar would leave for Maharashtra, Biplab Deb would leave for Delhi to live with his wife but the BJP workers have to stay in Tripura only. After the assembly elections are held in February, 2018, the BJP workers would be taken to task by tooth and nail even before the date of oath taking by the Ministry."
4. On the basis of the said remarks in the speech, the complainant has stated, that the respondent had categorically threatened the workers supporting the opposition parties, more particularly, the BJP workers, which was sufficient enough to cause breach of peace and tranquility and also with intent to cause fear or alarm to the public and political workers supporting opposition parties like BJP and IPFT.
5. It has further been alleged that the said speech was also made with intent to create or promote on grounds of place of birth, residence which are sufficient grounds to cause enmity, spread hatred and ill-will between different regional groups and political groups. According to the complainant, the said speech appeared to be prejudicial to the maintenance of peace, harmony and national integration.
6. On receipt of the complaint, the date for examination of the complainant was fixed and on the date so fixed, the complainant along with another witness namely, Abindra Reang were examined under Section 200 of the CrPC and having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur, Gomati, Tripura passed the order dated 16.12.2017 wherein the Court had refused to take cognizance of the offence mainly on two grounds:
(i) The accused being a Member of Parliament (MP, in short) cannot be prosecuted without obtaining sanction under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; and
(ii) The statements and allegations leveled against the accused in the complaint do not attract the ingredients of Section 503 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the impugned order dated 16.12.2017 passed in CR(CC)21/2017 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur, Gomati, Tripura, the complainant has preferred the instant criminal revision petition before this Court for setting aside the said order.
8. After filing of the petition before this Court, notice was served upon the respondent but despite receipt of notice, the respondent did not enter appearance before this Court. This Court, on several occasions, gave opportunity t
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
