SWARARAJ THACKERAY @ RAJ THACKERAY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has invoked the extra -ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:

(2.) THE brief fact of the case as stands narrated in the complaint filed by respondent No.2 Hamid Raza Khan before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No.C/1 -354/08 was that the accused writ petitioner herein was the President of a political party named as Maharashtra Navnirman Sena, who in a public meeting on 31.1.2008 passed remarks against the Hindus in relation to a festival known as "Chhath  causing hurt to the religious feelings of Hindus and thereby outraged the feelings of the people of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Jharkhand within the territory of India. According to the complainant -respondent No.2 Hamid Raza Khan, celebration of "Chhath  festival has been cultural and religious belief and that the petitioner by his statements warned the North Indians, especially the Biharis that they would not be allowed to celebrate the holy festival "Chhath  in Maharashtra which created disharmony on account of his aggravated parochial feelings. Such statement was alleged to have been delivered with an intention which was likely to cause fear and alarm to the people of North -Eastern region by inducing his party men to commit offence against public tranquility and waging war against the Government of India by creating disturbance in the country. Statement of the complainant was recorded on 6.3.2008 on solemn affirmation whereby though he corroborated his earlier allegation against the petitioner as made in the complaint petition but, according to learned counsel, the complainant made substantial improvement/exaggeration beyond what was stated in the complaint to the extent that the petitioner had given call in the said meeting that the people of outside living in Maharashtra had no right to stay there and that the people from Bihar, Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh should be driven out.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner assailed the statement of all the three witnesses produced on behalf of the complainant that they also made development in their statements during enquiry beyond what was alleged by the complainant.