MANRAJ Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) for quashing the cognizance order dated 11.8.1992 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Chatra, in Chatra P.S. Case No. 103 of 1991 (CR No. 146/91) under Sections 504/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) TO appreciate the submissions made for on behalf of the petitioner, the facts of the case are required to be reiterated. The Opposite party No. 2 who happens to be a correspondent of the daily Newspaper "RANCHI EXPRESS" filed complaint petition No. 146 of 1991 on 29.8.1991 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra, contending, inter alia, that on 28.8.91 at 2 P.M. the complainant alongwith another correspondent who happens to be the sole witness of the incident of daily Newspaper "PRABHAT KHABAR" had gone to the office of petitioner No. 1 to make an enquiry from him regarding the alleged bunglings and illegalities in auctioning a Government Jeep by him and also regarding the auction of Charcoal. The petitioner No. 1 at the relevant time was the District Forest Officer of Chatra. A news item was published in the daily newspapers as mentioned above regarding the bungling of auction of a departmental Jeep and Charcoal. The complainant and his companion could not get the petitioner No. 1 in his office but they were informed by the peon of the office that they were being called by petitioner No. 1 at his residence. Then the society of Journalists. According to the complainant alongwith his companion went to the residence of petitioner No. 1 and they took their seat in the official residence of petitioner No. 1 then the petitioner No. 1 brought out a written paper and asked them to sign on the papers which contained denial regarding the news published. They were being compelled by petitioner No. 1 to sign on those papers but they refused. They politely stated to petitioner No. 1 that they had come to know what was the reality regarding the alleged bunglings done by him in auction of the Government Jeep and that they have not come up to him for issuance of any contradictions from him regarding the news published in their newspapers. When they refused to sign the papers put forward by petitioner No. 1, he became infuriated and started abusing them with filthy words, the details of which had been given in the complaint petition itself. The petitioner No. 1 during the course of such abusing statement pushed Thakur Dhirendra Prasad and caught hold of his neck and at the moment, the petitioner No. 2 who happens to be the wife of petitioner No. 1 appeared in the scene with a danda in her hands and attacked upon Thakur Dhirendra Prasad who was the companion of the complainant, a correspondent of the daily Newspaper "Prabhat Khabar". The attack by danda was overhit off by the complainant by raising his left hand as a result of which he sustained injury on the palm of his left hand and that the injury was serious and grievous in nature. According to the complainant, the incident not only insulted the complainant and his companion rather it was the insult to the complainant, they had given report to the local police station but no case was registered on the very date of incident and as such, they filed the complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra. The complaint was entertained by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and sent it to the police with an endorsement to the effect that. if no case was earlier instituted than the said complaint petition may be registered as a first information report and the investigation may be done. After investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against both the petitioners under the said Sections of the Indian Penal Code and then cognizance was taken against them, hence this petition.

(3.) MR . S.N. Sinha, appearing for an on behalf of the complainant-opposite party No. 2 contended that the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners are all their defence case. At the relevant time when the charcoal and the jeep were put an auction the fact remains that as per the admission of the complainant that there was no approval from the higher authorities. Moreover according to Mr. Sinha, the incident is related to illegal auction and bungling by the petitioner No. 1 but the occurrence is with respect to the offences committed by the petitioners when the complainant and his companion were called at the official residence of Petitioner No. 1 for disclosing the real facts regarding the alleged bungling but there the petitioners had mishandled the complainant and his companion which gave rise to the offences alleged.