Allahabad High Court
Brahmendra Pratap Singh Maurya vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl Chief ... on 16 January, 2023
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?
Court No. - 14
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 334 of 2023
Applicant :- Brahmendra Pratap Singh Maurya
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko And Others
Counsel for Applicant :Pranshu Agrawal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.P. Tiwari, learned A.G.A.-1 assisted by Sri Vipul Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
For the order proposed to be passed, there is no need to issue notice to the opposite party no. 2, therefore issuance of notice is dispense with.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the impugned judgement and order dated 10.10.2022 passed by the court of Additional Session Judge/Fast Track Court No. 1, Lucknow, by means of which Criminal Revision No. 368/2016 preferred by the revisionist has been rejected in the case titled as 'Brahmendra Singh Maurya Vs the State of Uttar Pradeh and 3 others. It is further prayed for quashing the order dated 25.7.2016 passed by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow thereby rejecting the complaint case at the admission stage.
The brief facts of the case are that on 4.7.2016, the applicant had filed a complaint case against the private opposite parties disclosing that on 24.6.2016, the applicant through whatsapp message came to know that in the Udaipur Edition dated 23.6.2016 of Dainik Bhasker newspaper, a news item was published under the heading of "Sangh Parivar ki Nazar me Akbar ke baad ab Samrat Ashok Khalnaayak, aur Baudh Rashtra drohi.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that after reading the news item/article not only the revisionist but a large class of people became perturbed and felt highly harassed and humiliated. The contents of the news item/article were deliberate and malicious and are intended to outrage religious feelings of a class of people by insulting its religion and religious beliefs. This news item/article promoted enmity between different groups on the ground of religion race etc. and is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony and is also prejudicial to the national integration. The applicant is a law abiding and responsible person of the society filed a complaint case in a court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow rejected the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. on the ground that offence is not instituted in the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Therefore, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the complaint on the basis of territorial jurisdiction.
Against the order of the C.J.M. the applicant approached before the revisional court and learned revisional court also wrongly rejected the complaint of the applicant without appreciating true perspective. Therefore, being aggrieved with the rejection of the complaint, the applicant approached before this Court by filing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In support of his submission learned counsel for the applicant place reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh Agarwal reported in (1999) 8 SCC 686, in which it has been held that it was an erroneous view that the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence must necessarily have territorial jurisdiction to try the case as well. The provisions of Sections 177 and 179 of the Code do not trammel the powers of any court to take cognizance of the offence.
Learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance o also place reliance of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in in Ramji Lal Modi Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1957 SC 620, Rajandra Ramchandra Kavelkar Vs. State of Maharastra and Another AIR 2009 SC 1792, Rasikala Dalpatram Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat (2010) 1 SCC 1 and Kaushik Chatterjee Vs. State of Haryana and others Transfer Petition (CRL) No. 456 of 2019.
Learned A.G.A. submitted that learned counsel for the applicant has neither annexed paper cutting nor whats app message with the present the application. He further submitted that after appreciating the entire evidence available on record and submissions, learned trial court and learned revisional court has rejected the complaint of the applicant on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. Thus, there is no irregularity, illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court and revisional court, therefore, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be rejected.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. On the perusal of the record it appears that learned counsel for the applicant has not annexed the whatsapp chat and Udaipur Edition dated 23.6.2016 of Dainik Bhasker newspaper. As per submission of the learned counsel for the applicant offence under Section 153 -A and 505 I.P.C. is made out against the opposite partties. Learned counsel for the applicant has not annexed whatsapp chat and paper cutting, therefore, learned counsel for the applicant failed to show how the enmity is promoted by the opposite party no. 4 between different groups on the ground of religion race etc. and failed to show how the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are involved in this matter. For deciding of the present case, the bare reading of Section 196 (1) Cr.P.C. is required. The provision of Section 196 (1) Cr.P.C. read as under:-
"Section 196(1) in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(1) No Court shall take cognizance of-
(a)any offence punishable under Chapter VI or under section 153A, of Indian Penal Code, or Section 295 A or sub section (1) of section 505] of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ) or
(b) a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, or
(c) any such abetment, as is described in section 108A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government."
On the perusal of the mandatory provision of Section 196 (1) Cr.P.C. it is clear that before prosecuting any person under Section 153 -A and 505 I.P.C., sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government is required. Without taking any mandatory sanction, no court shall take cognizance of such offence. Thus, the false and frivolous complaint has been filed by the applicant only to gain cheap popularity, which cannot be permitted in any condition in a garb of the present application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 16.1.2023/Anuj Singh
