IN RE : DEEPAK AGRAWAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suo motu revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code').

(2.) THE orders in question are passed by Shri P.L. Dinkar, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Itarsi, Distt. Hoshangabad with regard to the complaint made by the noticee Deepak Agrawal against Smt. Soniya Gandhi, President, Sanyukta Pragatisheel Gathbandhan, Shri Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister, Govt. of India, Shri Hansraj Bhardwaj, Minister, Ministry of Law & Justice Govt, of India, Sushri Ambika Soni, Minister, Culture and Tourism Ministry, Govt. of India, Shri S.T. Raghwan, Additional Secretary to Ministry of Road, Transport Rajmarg & Shipping Corporation and C. DorJi, Director, Indian Archaeological Survey, New Delhi, in respect of the offences punishable under sections 120-B, 124- A, 295 and 295-A of the IPC. According to the complainant-noticee, all the six accused persons were involved in a conspiracy in pursuance of which, they had managed to submit affidavits sworn in by the accused Nos. 5 and 6 before the Supreme Court in respect of the Sethusamudram Project, with intent to outrage religious feelings of Hindus who believe that Sethusamudram, popularly known as Ramsethu or Rama's Bridge was built by Lord Rama.

(3.) TAKING note of the palpable jurisdictional errors committed by the Magistrate, this revision was entertained and notice was issued to the complainant to show cause as to why the order dated 6.10.2007 and subsequent proceedings initiated upon his complaint should not be quashed. In response, the complainant-noticee, instead of filing a reply, has preferred to submit written arguments. With reference to these arguments, I have also heard learned Panel Lawyer at length.