2025 INSC 305
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(HON’BLE B.V.
NAGARATHNA, J. AND HON’BLE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.)
HARI NANDAN SINGH
Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND
Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. Of 2025 (Arising out of
SLP (Crl.) No.452 of 2024)-Decided on 11-02-2025
Criminal, Quashing
Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973, Section 227, 482 – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Offences
punishable under Sections 298, 504, 353 IPC – Held that the
essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the appellant
under Sections 353, 298, and 504 IPC are not made out -
Evidently, there was no assault or use of force by the appellant to
attract Section 353 IPC - Therefore, the High Court ought to
have discharged the appellant under Section 353 IPC - Further, the
appellant is accused of hurting the religious feelings of the informant by
calling him “Miyan-Tiyan” and “Pakistani” - Undoubtedly, the statements made
are poor taste. However, it does not amount to hurting the religious sentiments
of the informant. Hence, we are of the opinion that the appellant shall also be
discharged under Section 298 IPC - Additionally, the appellant cannot
be charged under Section 504 IPC, as there was no act on his part
that could have provoked a breach of peace and accordingly, deserves to be
discharged under Section 504 IPC as well - Order of the High Court
which has sustained the order of the Trial Court liable to be set aside and
consequently application filed by the appellant allowed and the appellant discharged from all the three
offences alleged against him.
(Para
19 and 20)
JUDGMENT
Nagarathna, J.:- Leave granted.
2.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 28.08.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Petition
No.1094/2023, by which the petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”) with the prayers to quash the
criminal proceedings including the order dated 06.07.2021 passed
by Reason: 24.03.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First
Class,
Bokaro
was dismissed and the validity of the said orders were sustained by the High
Court, the appellant is before this Court.
3.
Briefly stated facts of the case are that a F.I.R. was registered at Bokaro
Sector-IV P.S. Case No. 140 of 2020, based on a complaint by the informant, who
was posted as an Urdu Translator and Acting Clerk (Right to Information) in the
Sub-Divisional Office, Chas. The informant alleged that the appellant herein
had sought certain information from the Additional Collector-cum-First
Appellate Authority, Bokaro, and the said information was dispatched to him.
However, the appellant subsequently filed an appeal before the Additional
Collector-cum-First Appellate Authority, allegedly after manipulating the
documents sent to him by the office through registered post and making false
allegations of manipulation in the documents.
4.
In light of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer- cum-Public
Information Officer, Chas, the Additional Collector- cum-First Appellate
Authority directed the informant to personally serve the information to the
appellant. Consequently, on 18.11.2020, at about 01:20 P.M., the informant,
accompanied by the messenger of the Sub- Divisional Office, Chas, visited the
appellant’s residence to hand over the information. The appellant initially
refused to accept the documents but, upon insistence by the informant,
eventually accepted them. However, he allegedly abused the informant by
referring to his religion and used criminal force against him while he was
discharging his official duties, with the intention of intimidating and
deterring him from performing his duties as a public servant.
5.
The informant subsequently reported the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Chas, who, upon oral direction, instructed the lodging of the F.I.R., leading
to the registration of Bokaro Sector-IV P.S. Case No. 140 of 2020 against the
appellant. After completing the investigation, the police submitted a charge
sheet against the appellant for offences punishable under Sections
298, 504, 506, 353, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code
(for short, “IPC”).
6.
Upon examining the materials collected during the investigation, by order dated
08.07.2021, the learned Magistrate took cognisance of the said offences and
summoned the appellant.
7.
Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an application for discharge
under Section 239 Cr.P.C. By order dated 24.03.2022, the learned Magistrate
held that there was sufficient material available on record for framing charges
against the appellant under Sections 353, 298, and 504 of
the IPC. However, the learned Magistrate further held that there was lack of
evidence for the offences punishable under Sections
323 and 406 IPC.
8.
Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred criminal revision petition before the
Additional Sessions Judge-1, Bokaro and the same was dismissed by order dated
20.02.2023. Thereafter, the appellant approached the High Court by filing Cr.
M.P No. 1094 of 2023 seeking to quash the entire criminal proceedings against
the appellant including the orders dated 08.07.2021, 24.03.2022 and 20.02.2023.
By impugned order dated 28.08.2023, the High Court dismissed the criminal
miscellaneous petition filed by the appellant. Hence this instant appeal.
9.
For ease of reference, the relevant portions of the complaint could be
extracted as under;
“5. That in view of
compliance of the above order of the Sub-Divisional Officer- cum-Public Information
Officer, Chas, to make the information material available personally again, I
went on dated 18.11.2020, afternoon 01.20 O’clock along with Office Peon Sh.
Munna Singh for compliance at the residence of Sh. Harinandan Singh, House
No.2362, Sector-4/D. On pressing call bell at his residence, Sh. Harinandan
Singh started refusing to take information material from inside the gate
itself. On again and again requesting by me, he received the information
material. In order of receiving information material, Sh. Harinandan Singh hurt
my religious sentiments from inside the gate itself. Even he called me
Miyan-Tiyan along with Pakistani. He fully tried to create dispute with me.
This act done by me has also been recorded by the peon gone along with me. I have
given this information to Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas also at which the
Sub-divisional Officer has given oral orders to register FIR against the
incidents happened with me.
6. That Sh. Harinandan
Singh created hindrance in the compliance/execution of the letters concerned
with government work due to which I am mentally disturbed. This is
adversely affecting on my work.”
10.
Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bokaro initiated proceedings on the
said FIR and consequently, issued summons to the appellant herein. Being
aggrieved, an application for discharge was filed by the appellant herein in
the form of a counter affidavit-cum-written statement. By order dated
24.03.2022, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bokaro dismissed the
said application by not being inclined to discharge of the appellant herein and
instead continued the proceedings. The said order was assailed in Criminal
Misc. Petition No. 1094/2023 before the High Court, the High Court has
sustained the aforesaid order and has dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous
Petition. Hence this appeal.
11.
We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and learned standing
counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand and perused the material on
record.
12.
During the course of submissions, learned senior counsel for the appellant drew
our attention to Sections 353, 298 and 504 of the IPC
and contended that if the ingredients of these offences are juxtaposed with the
relevant portions of the complaint extracted above, it is easily discernible
that no offence whatsoever has been made out under the aforesaid Sections.
Further the charge under Section 353 does not arise at all as against
the appellant and the offences under Sections 298, 504 of the
IPC are not compoundable offences. He therefore, submitted that the learned
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bokaro ought to have allowed the application
seeking discharge and closed the proceedings against the appellant herein.
13.
Learned senior counsel further submitted that the High Court was also not right
in sustaining the order dated 06.07.2021 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bokaro and thereby dismissing the Criminal Misc. Petition. Learned senior
counsel submitted that the impugned orders may be set aside and the application
filed by the appellant herein may be allowed.
14.
Learned senior counsel for the appellant further submitted that the
appellant is presently aged about 80 years and at this stage of his life, he
has been forced to face this criminal proceeding.
15.
Per contra, learned standing counsel for the respondent- State with reference
to his counter affidavit contended that there is no merit in this appeal; that
the counter affidavit has in detail narrated as to how the offences have been
rightly alleged against the appellant herein. Learned senior counsel submitted
that the impugned order would not call for any interference in this appeal.
16.
We have considered the arguments advanced at the bar. For the sake of immediate
reference, we extract Sections 353, 298 and 504 of the
IPC as under:
“Section 353: Assault
or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty:
Whoever assaults or
uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of
his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person
from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything
done or attempted to be done by such person to the lawful discharge of his duty
as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with
both.
Section 298: Uttering
words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings.
Whoever, with the
deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters
any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person or makes any gesture
in the sight of that person or places any object in the sight of that person,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Section
504 Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.
Whoever intentionally
insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it
to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or
to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with
both.
17.
Before considering the claim of the parties, it is useful to refer
to Sections 227 and 228 CrPC which are reproduced below:
“227. Discharge.—If,
upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted
therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution
in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record
his reasons for so doing.
228. Framing of
charge.—(1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is
of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an
offence which—
(a) is not exclusively
triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused
and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or
any other Judicial Magistrate of the First Class and direct the accused to
appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or, as the case may be, the
Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, on such date as he deems fit, and
thereupon such Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the
procedure for the trial of warrant cases instituted on a police report;
(b) is exclusively
triable by the court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.
(2) Where the Judge
frames any charge under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the charge shall be read
and explained to the accused, and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads
guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.” From the above, it is
clear that the Judge must examine all case records, review the submitted
documents, and hear the arguments from both the accused and the
prosecution. If the Judge finds that there is “not sufficient ground” to
proceed against the accused, they must discharge the accused while providing
reasons for the decision. However, if after such examination and hearing, the
Judge believes that there is “ground for presuming” that the accused has committed
an offence, they may proceed by framing charges in writing and directing the
accused to stand trial as per the prescribed procedure.
This Court
in Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368 has on consideration of the
various decisions about the scope of Sections 227 of the Code, laid
down the following principle
“21. On consideration
of the authorities about the scope of Sections
227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:
(i) The Judge while
considering the question of framing the charges under Section
227 CrPC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the
limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the
accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend
upon the facts of each case.
(ii) Where the
materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused
which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in
framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The court cannot
act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to
consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence
and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc.
However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons
of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
(iv) If on the basis
of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused
might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction
the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused has committed the offence.
(v) At the time of
framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be
gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on
the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of
offence by the accused was possible.
(vi) At the stage
of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the
material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging
there from taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the
ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose,
sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to
accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to
common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are
possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from
grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and
at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or
acquittal.”
18.
Applying the aforesaid judgment to the present case in light of what has been
extracted above as the relevant portion of the First Information Report in
light of the offence alleged as against the appellant herein, we do not find
that any ingredients of the offences alleged as against the appellant herein
find place in FIR registered as against him.
19.
A bare perusal of Case No. 140 of 2020 reveals that the essential ingredients
of the offences alleged against the appellant under Sections
353, 298, and 504 IPC are not made out. Evidently, there was no
assault or use of force by the appellant to attract Section 353 IPC.
Therefore, the High Court
ought
to have discharged the appellant under Section 353 IPC.
Further,
the appellant is accused of hurting the religious feelings of the informant by
calling him “Miyan-Tiyan” and “Pakistani.” Undoubtedly, the statements made are
poor taste. However, it does not amount to hurting the religious sentiments of
the informant. Hence, we are of the opinion that the appellant shall also be
discharged under Section 298 IPC. Additionally, we find that the
appellant cannot be charged under Section 504 IPC, as there was no
act on his part that could have provoked a breach of peace and accordingly, deserves
to be discharged under Section 504 IPC as well.
20.
In the circumstances, we set aside the order of the High Court which has
sustained the order of the Trial Court and consequently, allow the application
filed by the appellant herein and discharge the appellant from all the three
offences alleged against him.
21.
The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Pending
application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
------