Jharkhand High Court
Rahul Gandhi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 October, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:31319)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1368 of 2022
Rahul Gandhi, aged about 48 years, s/o late Rajiv Gandhi, resident of
12, Tughlak Lane, P.O. & P.S. & Dist.-New Delhi
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Pratap Kumar, son of Gangadhar Katiyar, resident of Mohalla
Chhota Nimdih, P.O.-Chaibasa, P.S.-Sadar, Dist.-West Singhbhum
.... Opp. Parties
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioners : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate
: Mr. Deepankar, Advocate
: Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Amrita Kumari, Addl. P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate
: Ms. Savita Kumari, Advocate
.....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with three-
fold prayers. The first prayer is to quash the order dated
04.02.2022 passed in Complaint Case No. 229 of 2021 by the
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chaibasa whereby and where
under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chaibasa has
taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 500 of
the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The second prayer is
(2025:JHHC:31319)
to quash the order dated 03.10.2019 passed in Criminal Revision
No. 13 of 2019 by the Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at
Chaibasa and the third prayer is to quash the order dated
06.08.2025 passed in Complaint Case No. 229 of 2021 by the
Special Judge, MP/MLA, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa whereby
and where under, substance of accusation has been explained to
the petitioner.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the opposite party no.2-
complainant filed Complaint Case No. 229 of 2021 alleging
commission of the offence punishable under Section 500 of the
Indian Penal Code by the petitioner, as the petitioner by speaking,
made imputations concerning the president of a national political
party of which the complainant is an office bearer, intending to
harm and having reason to believe that such imputation will harm
the reputation of such president of the national political party
concerned.
4. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chaibasa vide order
dated 15.02.2019 dismissed the complaint petition of the
complainant-opposite party no.2 in exercise of the power under
Section 203 of Cr.P.C. The complainant-opposite party no.2 filed
Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2019 in the court of Sessions Judge,
West Singhbhum at Chaibasa. Vide the order dated 03.10.2019 the
learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa after inter
alia observing that it found that averments of the complaint,
statement on solemn affirmation coupled with the materials
(2025:JHHC:31319)
available on the record categorically constitute ingredients of
offences as alleged and there appear prima facie sufficient materials
for proceeding against the proposed accused for having
committed the offence, further observed that the reason assigned
by the learned Magistrate for dismissing the complaint is not
tenable and went on to set aside the order dated 15.02.2019 passed
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Singhbhum at
Chaibasa in Complaint Case No. 161 of 2018 and directed the
lower court to hear the petitioner and pass a fresh order in
accordance with law.
5. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, West Singhbhum at
Chaibasa vide order dated 04.02.2022 considered the said
observation made by the learned Session Judge, West Singhbhum
at Chaibasa in Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2019 and after going
through the materials in the record considering the statement on
solemn affirmation of inquiry witnesses, the facts and
circumstances as discussed and also the order passed in Criminal
Revision No. 13 of 2019 dated 03.10.2019 (which has apparently
because of printing error been mentioned as Criminal Revision
No. 03 of 2019, in the impugned order passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa) by the
learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa, came to the conclusion that
there are sufficient materials to proceed further for the offence
punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the
(2025:JHHC:31319)
petitioner as prima facie case is made out for the said offence
against the petitioner and directed for issue of summons.
6. On 06.08.2025 the petitioner appeared before the learned Special
Court of Elected M.P./M.L.A.-cum-S.D.J.M., Sadar, West
Singhbhum at Chaibasa in the said Complaint Case No. 229 of
2021 and he was taken into custody. The petitioner made prayer
for regular bail and the petitioner was granted bail on the same
day of his appearance, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
with two sureties. The petitioner furnished bail bond and later on,
on 06.08.2025 substance of offence punishable under Section 500 of
the Indian Penal Code was explained to the petitioner, who was
accused person of the case in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried. The case was fixed to 25.08.2025 for
evidence of the complainant but it is submitted at the Bar that so
far complainant has not examined any witness.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner drawing
attention of this Court to Section 398 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, that the same mandates that on exercising power upon
any record under Section 397 Cr.P.C. or otherwise inter alia the
Sessions Court may direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself
or by any of the Magistrate subordinate to him to make "further
inquiry" into any complaint which has been dismissed, inter alia
under Section 203 Cr.P.C. but in this case, the learned Sessions
Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa by the said impugned
judgment dated 03.10.2019 in Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2019
(2025:JHHC:31319)
has instead of directing further inquiry into the complaint in
terms of Section 398 of Cr.P.C., has directed the learned
Magistrate to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner and
this coupled with the fact that the learned Sessions Judge, West
Singhbhum at Chaibasa has observed that the averments of
complaint, statement on solemn affirmation of the complaint
coupled with the material available in the record categorically
constitute ingredients of offence as alleged and there appears
prima facie sufficient material for proceeding against the proposed
accused of the aforesaid offence resulting in the revisional court
exceeding its jurisdiction and compelling the learned Magistrate
to take cognizance of the offence without leaving any scope for the
learned Magistrate to apply its own independent mind; which is
requirement of law.
8. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Rajendra Rajoriya vs. Jagat Narain Thapak &
Anr. reported in (2018) 17 SCC 234, it is submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner in paragraph no.15 therein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India has in categorical terms held that the
revisional court in the facts of that case was in error to the extent
of influencing the Magistrate court to keep the findings of the
Sessions Court in mind, while considering the case on remand
and in this case also since the learned Sessions Judge has not
directed the Magistrate to conduct any further inquiry as
envisaged under Section 398 of Cr.P.C. but has influenced the
(2025:JHHC:31319)
Magistrate by his observation without specifically mentioning that
the Magistrate ought not have influenced by his judgment has
resulted in the Magistrate being left with no option but to take
cognizance. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. once a cognizance of
the offence of a summon case is taken, the Magistrate is left with
no option but to state the particulars of the offence of which the
petitioner was accused of and asking the petitioner whether he
pleads guilty or has own defence to make, therefore, the
erroneous cognizance order, has resulted in the learned S.D.J.M.,
West Singhbhum at Chaibasa being left with no alternative but to
state the particulars of the offence to the petitioner. It is then
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
allegation made against the petitioner are absolutely false and the
statement made by the petitioner is true and by public good and
in interest of his political party. It is then submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that no case of defamation as envisaged
under Section 499 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the
petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in
this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.
9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel
for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes
the prayer. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Rajendra Rajoriya vs. Jagat Narain
Thapak & Anr. (supra), it is submitted by the learned counsel for
(2025:JHHC:31319)
the opposite party no.2 that in paragraph no. 13 of the said
Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has in no
uncertain manner observed, that Section 398 has to be read along
with other sections which are equally applicable to the revision
petitions filed before the Sessions Judge and Section 398 only
deals with distinct power to direct further inquiry, whereas
Section 397 read with Section 399 and Section 401 confers power
on the revisionary authority to examine correctness, legality or
propriety or any findings, sentence or order. The powers of
revisionary court have to be cumulatively understood in
consonance with Sections 398, 399 and 401 Cr.P.C.
10. Therefore, it is submitted that the learned revisional court having
exercised the power under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. has rightly
remanded the case after setting aside the impugned order, after
finding prima facie offence punishable under Section 500 of the
Indian Penal Code and the learned Magistrate has only quoted the
portion of the judgment of the revisional court for the purpose of
mentioning, as to why there was requirement for passing a fresh
order and the learned Magistrate has not been influenced by the
order of the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa
rather the learned Magistrate has formed an independent opinion
and after finding sufficient material independently has taken
cognizance and has found sufficient material to proceed further
against the petitioner under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party
(2025:JHHC:31319)
no.2 that as the particulars of the offence already being stated to
the petitioner and as the petitioner has already pleaded not guilty
for the same hence, it is not open for the petitioner to question the
order of the revisional court in Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2019
dated 03.10.2019 or the order dated 04.02.2022 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-cum-Special Court,
M.P./M.L.A., West Singhbhum at Chaibasa. It is next submitted
by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that a
coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 4241 of 2018
reported in 2024:JHHC:6642 in a similar matter of the petitioner in
connection with C.P. No. 1698 of 2018 passed by the learned
S.D.J.M., Ranchi and in Criminal Revision No.281 of 2018 passed
by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, has held that in
that case, as the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi being the
revisional court has only directed the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi to
reappreciate the evidence available on the record and to pass an
order afresh on the point of determining prima facie material to
proceed in the matter, did not find any illegality in the order
dated 15.09.2018 passed the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi
and the order dated 28.11.2018 passed by the learned S.D.J.M.,
Ranchi finding the prima facie case to be true against the petitioner
for having committed the offence under Section 500 of Indian
Penal Code and dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition.
Hence, it is submitted that as the contention of the petitioner is
(2025:JHHC:31319)
same and similar in this case also, therefore, this criminal
miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.
11. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials in the record, so far as the contention of the
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 regarding the
judgment passed by a coordinate Bench in Cr.M.P. No. 4241 of
2018 is concerned, it is not forthcoming as to revisional court in
that case, whether in categorical terms observed that there
appears prima facie sufficient material for proceeding against the
proposed accused person of the offence alleged.
12. Now coming to the facts of the case, as has rightly been
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a settled
principle of law as has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in paragraph no.15 in the case of Rajendra
Rajoriya vs. Jagat Narain Thapak & Anr. (supra) that a
revisional court is not supposed to influence the Magistrate to
keep the finding of the Sessions Court in mind, while considering
the case on remand. In paragraph no.17 of the said judgment in
the case of Rajendra Rajoriya vs. Jagat Narain Thapak & Anr.
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India set aside the order of
the Magistrate taking cognizance as it was apparent in that case
that the Magistrate has observed that Sessions Court has already
made out a prima facie case.
13. As already indicated above, in this case, in the order dated
04.02.2022 passed in Complaint Case No. 229 of 2021 by the
(2025:JHHC:31319)
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-cum-Special Court,
M.P./M.L.A., West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, the Special Court has
both quoted the relevant portion of the order of the learned
Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa passed in Criminal
Revision No. 13 of 2019 wherein the learned Sessions Judge, West
Singhbhum at Chaibasa has inter alia recorded a categorical
finding that the averments of the complaint petition, sworn
affirmation of the complainant coupled with the materials
available in the record categorically constitute ingredients of
offence as alleged and there appears prima facie sufficient material
for proceeding against the proposed accused for the said offence.
The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-cum-Special Court,
M.P./M.L.A., West Singhbhum at Chaibasa while arriving at the
conclusion that there are sufficient material to proceed further for
the offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the
petitioner has taken into consideration the statement on solemn
affirmation of inquiry witnesses, facts and circumstances as
discussed as also the order passed in Criminal Revision No. 13 of
2019 dated 03.10.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Chaibasa, so, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-cum-Special Court,
M.P./M.L.A., West Singhbhum at Chaibasa was influenced by the
observation made by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum
at Chaibasa in Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2019 to the effect that
the material available in the record categorically constitute
(2025:JHHC:31319)
ingredients of offences alleged and has not independently came to
the conclusion that there are sufficient material to proceed against
the petitioner under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code solely on
the basis of its own independent opinion.
14. Perusal of the impugned judgement passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa it is crystal clear that
the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa has
committed two errors. Firstly, the learned Sessions Judge in the
impugned judgment in Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2019 has
failed to direct further inquiry into the complaint which has been
dismissed under Section 203, as is the mandate of Section 398 of
Cr.P.C. and secondly has also failed to specifically mention that
the learned Magistrate ought not be influenced by the observation
made by it in its judgment in Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2019.
Consequently, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chaibasa
failed to categorically mention that he found prima facie the
material to proceed against the petitioner for having committed
the said offence, independently without referring to the order
passed by the revisional court; as is the requirement of law.
15. Because of the discussions made above, this Court is of the
considered view that the order dated 04.02.2022 passed in
Complaint Case No. 229 of 2021 is set aside. Consequently, the
subsequent order dated 06.08.2025 so far relating to explaining the
substance of the case to the petitioner for the offence punishable
(2025:JHHC:31319)
under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code is also quashed and
set aside.
16. The order dated 03.10.2019 passed in Criminal Revision No. 13
of 2019 is modified by remanding the Complaint Case No. 161 of
2018 to the court of Special Court, M.P./M.L.A., West Singhbhum
at Chaibasa from the learned S.D.J.M., West Singhbhum at
Chaibasa with a direction that if necessary after a further inquiry
appropriate order be passed with regard to forming an opinion
regarding the existence of a prima facie material in the record, if
any, to proceed against the petitioner, reflecting its own
independent application of mind by the learned S.D.J.M. to the
materials placed before it, without being influenced by any
observation made by this Court or the learned Sessions Judge,
West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2019.
17. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed to
the aforesaid extent only.
18. In view of the disposal of this criminal miscellaneous petition,
interlocutory applications, pending if any, is disposed of being
infructuous.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 9th October, 2025
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
Uploaded on 14/10/2025
