Jharkhand High Court

Smt. Neelam Kujur vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 September, 2024

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          Cr.M.P. No.2862 of 2017
                                      ------

Smt. Neelam Kujur, W/o. Sushil Khusar, presently working as Manager (Administration), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Ramgarh Branch, P.O., P.S., Town & Dist: Ramgarh, State:

Jharkhand.

                                                       ...             Petitioner
                                          Versus
            1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Pramod Kumar Singh, S/o. Kamla Prasad Singh, resident of;

village Ukrid, P.O. & P.S.: Rajrappa, District: Hazaribagh, State Jharkhand, at present an employee of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Ramgarh Branch and presently residing at: Mohalla Parsotiya, At, P.O. & P.S. and District: Ramgarh, State: Jharkhand.

                                                      ...           Opposite Parties
                                           ------
             For the Petitioner      : Ms. Surbhi, Advocate
                                       Ms. Niti, Advocate
             For the State           : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P.
             For the O.P. No.2       : Mr. Arjun Narayan Deo, Advocate
                                            ------
                                         PRESENT
                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY


By the Court:-      Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with

Protest-cum-Complaint Case No.301 of 2016 arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case

No.93 of 2016 as also the summoning order dated 05.11.2016 whereby and

where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh has found prima

facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 500 and 504 of the Indian

Penal Code and the said case is now pending in the court of learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh.

3. The allegations against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the

Manager (Administration) working in Life Insurance Corporation of India;

though allowed the casual leave of the complainant who was an employee of

Life Insurance Corporation of India but his salary for two days on 01.09.2015

and 02.09.2015 was deducted, as a strike was called out on 02.09.2015 by the

unorganized union. Hence, none except the petitioner who was the Branch

Manager of Life Insurance Corporation of India and the co-accused were

present in the Branch of Life Insurance Corporation of India on 02.09.2015.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant earlier

filed complaint Case No.2268 of 2015 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Ranchi which was referred to the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. . Basing

upon which Ramgarh P.S. Case No.93 of 2016 was registered and police after

investigation of the case, submitted Final Form showing lack of evidence. Upon

which, the complainant filed the Protest-cum-Complaint case. Basing upon the

Protest-cum-Complaint, statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant

and the statement of enquiry witnesses, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Ramgarh found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 500

and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the only

grievance of the complainant is that deduction of his salary in spite of the

casual leave being granted and being sanctioned. It is next submitted that

admittedly the petitioner acted in his official capacity while discharging the

duty and under Section 107 of the Insurance Act, 1938, the Manager and other

employees of an insurer shall be treated to be public servant for the purpose of

Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code and Section 47 of the Life Insurance

Corporation of India Act, 1956 envisages that no suit, prosecution or other legal

proceeding shall lie against any member or employee of the Corporation for

anything which is done in good faith or intended to be done under the Act.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner furthermore submits that since the

employees of the Branch were on strike and as per the decision of the

Management, one day's salary of the complainant was deducted. It is then

submitted that later on, the said salary has been refunded also and the

complainant proceeded on casual leave on the date of strike but he never

disclosed that he was not participating in the strike. Hence, one day's salary

was deducted. It is next submitted that even if the allegations made in the

complaint are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offences

punishable under Sections 500 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code is not made

out. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this

Cr.M.P. be allowed.

7. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the

opposite party No.2 on the other hand oppose the prayer made by the

petitioner in this Cr.M.P. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite

party No.2 that the petitioner appeared in the trial court on 16.01.2017 and she

was enlarged on bail. The opposite party No.2- complainant has adduced

evidence. Neither the petitioner nor the complainant could take any step right

from 13.04.2020 till 03.06.2021 because of the Covid-19 Pandemic. The evidence

of the complainant was closed and the petitioner was directed to physically

appear before the court for her statement under section 313 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. It is next submitted that the trial of the petitioner is at an

advanced stage, hence, the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure ought not to be exercised at this belated stage. It is also submitted

that the allegations made against the petitioner in the complaint as well as the

evidence of the witness examined on behalf of the complainant makes out a

case under Section 500 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted

that the Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully

going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention

here that the petitioner filed this Cr.M.P. on 09.10.2017 but for the first time, the

same was listed before the Bench on 08.07.2019 and for the second time, the

case was listed before the Coordinate Bench on 02.07.2024 and on that date, the

Co-ordinate Bench stayed the further proceeding of Protest-cum-Complaint

Case No. 301 of 2016 arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No.93 of 2016.

9. So far as the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal

Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence

punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code are that:-

(i) Making or publishing any imputation concerning any person

(ii) Such imputation must have been made by courts either proclaimed

or intended to be read or by sign or by visible representation; and

(iii) Such imputation must have been made with intent to harm or with

knowledge or belief that it will harm the reputation of the person

concerned;

as has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the

case of John Thomas vs. Dr. K. Jagadeesan reported in (2001) 6

SCC 30.

10. Now coming to the facts of the case, the only allegation against the

petitioner is that the petitioner told the complainant that he will make the

complaint rot by continuing in the same post. This, in the considered opinion of

this Court, is by itself is not sufficient to constitute an imputation to have been

made with intent to harm or with knowledge or belief that it will harm the

reputation of the complainant.

11. Further, it is a settled principle of law that in a case of, criminal

defamation neither an F.I.R. can be filed nor can any direction be given under

Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as has been held by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in the case of Subramanian Swami vs. Union of India

reported in (2016) Criminal Law Journal 3214 (SC).

12. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even

if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in

their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal

Code is not made out.

13. So far as the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal

Code is concerned, it is a settled principle of law as has been reiterated by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207, paragraph-24 of which reads as

under :-

"24. Now, we revert back to the allegations in the complaint against the appellant. The allegation is that the appellant with two or three other unknown persons, one of whom was holding a

revolver, came to the complainant's house and abused him in filthy language and attempted to assault him and when some neighbours arrived there the appellant and the other persons accompanying him fled the spot. The above allegation taking on its face value does not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 as has been enumerated by this Court in the above two judgments. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The mere allegation that the appellant came and abused the complainant does not satisfy the ingredients as laid down in para 13 of the judgment of this Court in Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] .

that the intentional insult as has been referred to in Section 504 of the

Indian Penal Code, must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to

break the public peace or to commit any other offence.

14. Now there is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner

intentionally insulted anyone nor there is there any allegation that the

petitioner intended to give provocation knowing that it was likely that such

provocation would cause that person to commit a breach of peace.

15. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even

if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in

their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal

Code is not made out.

16. So far as the contention of the opposite party No.2 regarding exercise of

the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at a belated

stage is concerned, this is a case, which has been instituted for the purpose of

abusing the process of law by making a simple difference between a Branch