RAM SUBHAG SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXTRAORDINARY jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked on behalf of the petitioner for directing the respondent no. 4 -Officer In -charge, Doranda Police Station, Ranchi to institute a case under Sections 295A/290/153 of Indian Penal Code upon a written complaint, submitted by the petitioner on 21.9.2007, putting allegation against respondent no. 5 -the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu of maliciously outraging the religious feeling of the petitioner and also of the other people having faith in Hindu religion by uttering derogatory remarks against the Lord Rama.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 5 -the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu deliberately and maliciously uttered derogatory remarks against the Lord Rama outraging the religious feeling of the Hindus which was published in the daily newspaper 'Hindustan' Ranchi Edition on 21.9.2007. The petitioner having read it lodged a written complaint before Doranda Police Station on 21.9.2007 with a view to set the law in motion but the respondent no. 4 -Officer In -charge, Doranda Police Station, in spite of receiving the said complaint, disclosing cognizable offence, did not institute the case though he was statutorily bound to register the case. When the petitioner did find that the case has not been lodged, a written intimation was given to the Superintendent of Police, Ranchi through FAX but still no action was taken and, therefore, this application was filed for directing the respondent no. 4 -Officer In -charge, Doranda Police Station to lodge the case. Learned counsel in support of his submission, that the police, on receiving complaint, disclosing a cognizable offence, is duty bound to register the case, referred to a case of Ramesh Kumari V/s. State (NCT of Delhi) and others {(2006) 2 S.C.C. 677} and also a case of Parkash Singh Badal and another V/s. State of Punjab {(2007) 1 S.C.C. 1}.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it appears that when a news item was published in the daily newspaper including ˜Hindustan' in its issue on 21.9.2007 about the alleged derogatory remarks made by respondent no. 5 -the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu against the Lord Rama, a complaint was filed by the petitioner on the same day before the respondent no. 4 - Officer Incharge, Doranda Police Station alleging therein that respondent no. 5 by uttering certain remarks against Lord Rama deliberately and maliciously outraged the religious feeling of the petitioner and also of the other people having faith in Hindu religion and thereby committed cognizable offence under Section 295A of Indian Penal Code, but the respondent no. 4 -Officer In - charge, Doranda Police Station never instituted FIR on the aforesaid complaint and, therefore, this writ application was filed for directing the respondent no. 4 -Officer In -charge, Doranda Police Station to institute an FIR, as he, according to the petitioner, was duty bound to register the case on the complaint, as the same discloses commission of a cognizable offence. The said proposition, as advanced on behalf of the petitioner, has been laid down in a case of State of Haryana V/s. Bhajan Lal {1992 Supp (1) S.C.C. 335, wherein it was categorically held in Paragraph -33 : -