IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No.145 of 2024

------

Dr. Nishikant Dubey, aged about 51 years S/o Shri Radhey Shyam Dubey R/o 18, G.R.G. Road, P.O. and P.S. GRG Road, New Delhi-

110001 … Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate

Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA III

Mr. Deepankar, AC to GA III

------

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 31.07.2024 along with the F.I.R. of Mohanpur P.S. Case No.281 of 2023 in which charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 153-B (1) (c), 290, 336, 341, 342, 427, 504, 506, 295 (A), 505 (2) of the Indian Penal

Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the Hon’ble Member of Loksabha from Godda Constituency, accosted the informant and his associates, who were taking the bullocks by the side of the road to Banka in the State of Bihar after purchasing the same, from the Mohanpur Hat situated in the District of Deoghar in the State

of Jharkhand and the petitioner called the informant to be a ‘Bangadeshi Pashu Tashkar’ meaning ‘Bangladeshi Animal Smuggler’ and drove away the bullocks causing a loss of Rs.2,38,000/- to the informant and handed over the informant to police of Mohanpur Police Station; but the Mohanpur Police Station, after verification of the address of the informant and finding the receipt and after verifying the receipt in respect of the purchase of bullocks, found the same to be true and released the informant.

4. On the basis of the written-report submitted by the informant, police registered Mohanpur P.S. Case No.281 of 2023 and took up the investigation of the case. After completion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 153-B (1) (c), 290, 336, 341, 342, 427, 504, 506, 295 (A), 505 (2) of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of making or publishing any material regarding any obligation of any class of persons by reason of their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community as is likely to cause disharmony or feeling of enmity or hatred or ill-will between such members and other persons, hence, the offence punishable under Section 153 B (1) (c) of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner.

6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner next submits that there is no allegation against the petitioner of doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or personal safety of others. Hence, it is submitted that the offence punishable under Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner.

7. It is next submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner of wrongfully restraining anyone, hence, the offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner.

8. So far as the offence punishable under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation against the petitioner of wrongfully confining anyone. Therefore, the offence punishable under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner.

9. In respect of the offence punishable under Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation against the petitioner of committi