##PAGE1##

( 2026:JHHC:4773 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No.987 of 2024

------

Babulal Marandi, aged about 62 years, Son of Late Chhotu Marandi,

at Present MLA of Raj Dhanwar (Giridih) and Leader of Bhartiya

Janta Party in Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha, Resident of Morabadi, P.O.-

Morabadi & P.S.-Barityatu & District-Ranchi.

… Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Dineshwar Kisku, aged about 50 years, Son of Thuda Kisku,

Resident of Village-Mednisarai, P.O.-Dhamni, P.S.-Budhai &

District-Deoghar.

… Opposite Parties

------

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

: Ms. Akriti Shree, Advocate

: Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA-III

: Mr. Deepankar, AC to GA-III

: Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl.P.P.

For the OP 2 : None

------

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

By the Court:- 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

1

Cr. M.P. No.987 of 2024

( 2026:JHHC:4773 )

proceeding in connection with Madhupur P.S. Case No.176 of 2023

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 153-A(1)(a), 500, 504

& 505 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.

4. The brief fact of the case is that the informant submitted a written

report to the Officer-in-charge of Madhupur Police Station alleging

therein that the petitioner being the leader of the BJP and the State

President of BJP has made a statement that “The entire Family of my Leader

are looters”. It is alleged that the said statement was made against the

leader of the informant namely Sibu Soren and Hemant Soren.

5. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant police

registered Madhupur P.S. Case No.176 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 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

2

Cr. M.P. No.987 of 2024

( 2026:JHHC:4773 )

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 and

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 Section 500 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 w