BASUDEO TIWARY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Learned Counsel appearing for the State. Having heard and on perusal of the record, it does appear that the complainant, Girja Prasad Singh, a member of the District Bar Association, Daltonganj wrote a letter to the Commissioner, Palamau for settlement of Balughat to him in the capacity of the Secretary of the Adhibakta Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar Samiti on the plea that as per the policy of the Government, preference is being given in the matter of settlement to the Cooperative Society. That was settled and thereby Girja Prasad Singh was asked to deposit 50% of the settlement amount but instead of depositing 50% of the settlement amount, he deposited Rs. 45,000/- and secured transit permit. When this fact came to the knowledge of the President, District Advocates' Association, he informed to the authority that the complainant, Girja Prasad Singh never happens to be the Secretary of the Cooperative Society and thereby he by applying fraud has secured settlement of Balughat.

(2.) On such allegation, Assistant Mining Officer, Palamau lodged a complaint case bearing C.G. case no. 107 of 2000, upon which cognizance of the offences has been taken. When such complaint was lodged, the matter was published in the Hindi Daily Newspaper "Hindustan". Upon publication of the news item, complainant Girja Prasad Singh lodged a complaint, bearing Complaint Case No. 706 of 2000 alleging therein that whatever news item has been published in the newspaper, that is baseless and has been published with a view to defame him and that news item has never been published correctly, rather it has been published by distorting the fact. On such complaint, cognizance of the offences was taken under Sections 153, 501(B), 502(B), 504, 505, 469/34 of the Indian Penal Code. That order is under challenge.

(3.) From the facts noted above, it would appear that whatever publication has been made, that has been made on the basis of the complaint lodged against the petitioner. Under this situation, the offences alleged never get attracted on which cognizance has been taken. As I have stated above that the cognizance has been taken under Sections 153, 501(B), 502(B), 504, 505, 469/34 of the Indian Penal Code, it is to be considered as to whether any of the offences is made out from the allegations given in the complaint.