Doranda, District- Ranchi v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Syed Mumtaz Ahmad, son of Late S.M. Hashmatullah
Case Details
[2025:JHHC:37929 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 47 of 2023 Umesh Prasad Gupta, aged about 62 years, son of Late Lakhi Prasad Gupta, resident of Sri Sai Tower, Kilburn Colony, Hinoo, PO & PS: Doranda, District- Ranchi ...... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Syed Mumtaz Ahmad, son of Late S.M. Hashmatullah, resident of 4/A, Jani Enclave, Jamia Nagar, Kadru, PO & PS: Argora, District- Ranchi ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Sahani , Adv. For the State For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Anurag Kumar, Adv. : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha , Spl. PP P R E S E N T 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 CrPC with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the order dated 27.07.2022 passed by learned SDJM, Ranchi in connection with Complaint case no. 2429 of 2019 whereby and whereunder, learned Magistrate has prima facie found sufficient materials against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 500 of the IPC and issued the summoning order. 3. The brief facts of the case is that in the year 2010, the petitioner made allegation against the complainant that the complainant who was the contractor was obtaining the signature of the Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer after threatening them and was receiving money without supplying the articles. It is also alleged that the complainant has taken money without doing the work in Officers’ Flat, at Booty More, Governor House and the residence of the Chief Justice. The petitioner is stated to have further alleged 1 Cr.M.P. No. 47 of 2023 [2025:JHHC:37929 ] that the complainant used to pressurize the senior officers. The petitioner went on to allege that the complainant is in possession of illegal property and he obtained the signature of the Assistant Engineer while under the influence of intoxication. On the basis of the complaint, the statement of the complainant on Solemn
Legal Reasoning
Affirmation and the statement of the Enquiry Witnesses, learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate has passed the summoning order, as already indicated above. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of the court to the copy of the complaint filed by the complainant- Opp. Party no. 2, in the court of learned SDJM, Ranchi vide the complaint case no. 2429 of 2019 that therein, it has categorically been mentioned that the time and date of the occurrence are of 26.02.2010 when the accused made false allegation through his official letter bearing no. 346 dated 26.02.2010. The second time of occurrence, when the allegations was found to be false by the Vigilance Committee on 24.03.2015 and on 29.10.2010 when the petitioner lodged a Complaint Case No. 1176 of 2010 implicating the complainant on false and fabricated allegation and lastly, on 17.08.2017 when the Anticipatory Bail Petition was filed by the complainant vide ABP No. 1474 of 2017. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the cognizance therefore, is hit by Section 468 of CrPC. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the substance of accusation has not yet been explained and the trial is yet to begin in this case.
Legal Reasoning
6. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the undisputed facts remains that the petitioner was not a party to the Anticipatory Bail Petition no. 1474 of 2017 in which, order dated 17.08.2017 was passed, so at best, the occurrence is said to have been taken place either on 26.02.2010 or on 24.03.2015 when the complainant claims the said allegation were found to be false by the Vigilance Committee but in any case, the undisputed fact 2 Cr.M.P. No. 47 of 2023 [2025:JHHC:37929 ] remains that the complaint was filed in the Court of learned SDJM on 20.05.2019 i.e. beyond a period of three years, hence, the proceeding against the petitioner which amounts to taking cognizance of the offence, is beyond a period three years, though the maximum period of sentence prescribed for the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC being two years, is not sustainable in law. It is next submitted that otherwise also, the allegations made against the petitioner are false. It is next submitted the allegation is said to have been made by the petitioner is in a letter written by the petitioner; who was at the relevant time, was posted as Superintendent Engineer to his superior officer and by no stretch of imagination, such communication, which was not for public consumption, can be termed that the same was made intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the complainant. 7. It is next submitted that the said letter of the petitioner comes within the ambit of exception to Section 499 of the IPC, as the accusation against the complainant, was to the lawful authority over petitioner with respect to the subject matter of the accusation. It is therefore, submitted 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 IPC is not made out, against the petitioner. 8. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that an enquiry was initiated against the petitioner in the year 2012 wherein a report was submitted on 24.03.2015 against the petitioner on the basis of said factual backdrop by the alleged letter dated 26.02.2010 issued by the petitioner. It is next submitted that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands by suppressing the fact that pursuant to the letter issued by the petitioner, the Department initiated the enquiry and upon the final report submitted by the Enquiry Committee, show- cause was issued to the complainant and after considering the 3 Cr.M.P. No. 47 of 2023 [2025:JHHC:37929 ] reply of the complainant, accepting his guilt, the department blacklisted him, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 9. Learned Spl. PP and learned counsel for the O.P.No. 2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submit that the materials in the record is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed. 10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, it is pertinent to refer Section 468 (1) (2) of CrPC , 1973 which reads as under :- “468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of period of limitation.— (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) The period of limitation shall be— (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.” The maximum punishment prescribed for the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC is two years, so as per Section 468 (2) (c ) the period of limitation is three years. Now coming to the fact of the case, it is admitted case of the complainant that main time and place of the occurrence is the 26.02.2010 when the petitioner made false allegations through his official letter no. 346 of the said date and the additional time and place of occurrence has been introduced by way of findings of the Vigilance Committee, when it found that the allegation were false to be on 24.03.2015. So, it is needless to mention that the complaint having been filed on 20.05.2019, both these dates of occurrences were more than three years, before the complaint was filed and another date and time of occurrence, has been introduced on 17.08.2017 when the Anticipatory Bail Petition was filed by one Dr. Ranjan 4 Cr.M.P. No. 47 of 2023 [2025:JHHC:37929 ] Deb with a copy of the complaint of the Complaint Case No. 1176 of 2010 filed by the petitioner against the complainant but it being the admitted case of the parties that the petitioner was not a party to the Anticipatory Bail Petition concerned, certainly, no culpability can be attributed to the petitioner in view of the occurrence which took place on 17.08.2017. So admittedly, the date of occurrence being more than three years before filing of the complaint, this Court has no hesitation in holding that learned Magistrate has committed a grave error by passing the summoning order even though the alleged occurrence took place more than three years before filing of the complaint itself. 11. Now coming to the facts of the case, the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner wrote a letter to his superior officer in which he has made some imputation which allegedly harmed the reputation of the complainant. It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law and Others reported in (2016)7 SCC 221 : 2016 Cr. L J 3214 SC that to constitute the offence, there has to be imputation and it must have made in the manner as provided in the provision with the intention of causing harm or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the person about whom it is made. Causing harm to the reputation of a person is the basis on which the offence is founded and mens rea is a condition precedent to constitute the said offence. The complainant has to show that the accused had intended or known or had reason to believe that the imputation made by him would harm the reputation of the complainant. The criminal offence emphasizes on the intention or harm. Section 44 of IPC defines “injury”. It denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property. Thus, the word “injury” encapsulates harm caused to the reputation of any person. It also takes into account the harm caused to a person’s body and mind. 5 Cr.M.P. No. 47 of 2023 [2025:JHHC:37929 ] Section 499 of IPC provides for harm caused to the reputation of a person, i.e. the complainant in this case. 12. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that the main allegation of the complainant is that the petitioner wrote a letter to his superior alleging the misdeeds of the complainant. But the complainant has suppressed the material fact that basing upon such averments made in the letter by the petitioner, the complainant was blacklisted as a Contractor of Drinking Water and Sanitation Department. Of course, the said order of blacklisting the complainant, was set aside by this Court as the period of blacklist was indefinite, which was not in accordance with law. As the allegation against the petitioner was confined to the private communication between the petitioner and the complainant and the same was in response to the letter of the complainant to the petitioner dated 15.02.2010 and a copy of the said letter was addressed to the superior officers of the petitioner and the same comes under the 9th Exception of Section 499 of IPC which reads as under :- “499. Defamation.—Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person. xx Ninth Exception.—Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's interests. It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good.” Certainly no mens rea of the petitioner of harming or knowing and having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the complainant can be attributed to such official communication made by the petitioner in capacity of the Executive Engineer of the Drinking Water and Sanitation Division of Ranchi East, Ranchi. 13. So far as the complaint filed by the petitioner vide Complaint Case no. 1176 of 2010 is concerned, in that case, the petitioner 6 Cr.M.P. No. 47 of 2023 [2025:JHHC:37929 ] alleged that the Complainant- Opposite Party no. 2 of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has earlier made false allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner was demanding illegal gratification for passing his bill which is false and fabricated. It was further alleged in the said complaint that the complainant - Opposite Party no. 2 claimed false payment for work done by him in village Baridih, which is contrary to the rules of the department and pressurized the petitioner for illegal payment. It was contented by the petitioner in the said complaint being the Complaint Case no. 1176 of 2010 that by such action, the complainant- Opposite Party no. 2 herein has lowered the prestige of the petitioner by sending a letter to Superintendent Engineer, Drinking water and Sanitation Department. The petitioner never demanded any illegal gratification. The said Complaint Case No.
Decision
1176 of 2010 was disposed of vide the judgment dated 30.11.2018 by learned JMFC, Ranchi by holding that the imputations do not come within the ambit of defamation hence, the complainant failed to establish the charge punishable under section 500 of IPC and there is no finding of learned Magistrate that allegation made by the petitioner in the complaint of the Complaint Case no. 1176 of 2010, is false and in the absence of the same, it cannot be said that the averments made in the Complaint Case no. 1176 of 2010 has defamed the Complainant- Opposite Party no. 2, for which the punishment has been provided for in Section 500 of IPC and that too, when the Complaint Case was filed way back in the year 2010. 14. Under such circumstances in the absence of the offence of defamation being made out against the petitioner, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner in the complaint, the statement of complainant under Solemn Affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses are considered to be true in their entirety, still in the absence of any intention on the part of the petitioner to harm or knowing any reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the complainant-opposite 7 Cr.M.P. No. 47 of 2023 [2025:JHHC:37929 ] party no 2 and on the other hand, the same was as part of discharge of duty of the petitioner as a public servant in the interest of the department concerned and for the public and the same undisputedly resulted in blacklisting of the complainant- opposite party no. 2 as a Contractor, this Court is of the considered view that the allegations are not sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety. Therefore, the continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, this is a fit case, where the order dated 27.07.2022 passed by learned SDJM, Ranchi in connection with Complaint case no. 2429 of 2019, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 15. Accordingly, the order dated 27.07.2022 passed by learned SDJM, Ranchi in connection with Complaint case no. 2429 of 2019, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 16. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 10th December, 2025 Smita /AFR Uploaded on 23.12.2025 8 Cr.M.P. No. 47 of 2023