Ashok Kumar Singh v. The State of Jharkhand

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner ------ : : : : : ------ 13/ 20.04.2023 Heard Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Advocate. Ms Shabina Perween, Advocate. Mr. Sonu Kumari, Advocate. Mr. S.K. Srivastava, A.P.P. Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate. For the State For the O.P. No. 2 petitioner, Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Rishav Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated

26.11.2013, passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner-IV, Ranchi, in Criminal Revision No. 33 of 2013, whereby, he has been pleased to dismiss the revision petition by affirming the order dated 02.01.2013, passed in Complaint Case No. 930 of 2011 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, whereby he did not take cognizance against the O.P. No. 2 for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC and took the cognizance against only one of the accused Kishun Prasad Verma.

3. The complaint was filed alleging therein that the petitioner has filed a complaint, alleging therein that accused- Opp. Party No. 2 namely, Yatindra Prasad and one Kishun Prasad Verma had committed offence punishable under Section 500 IPC. It has been further stated that the complainant is a practicing advocate enrolled as member in Jharkhand High Court Bar Association had a dispute with Accused No. 2, Kishun Prasad Verma with regard to a piece of land situated in Mohalla Gosaitoli, Upper Chutia, P.S.- Chutia, District- Ranchi and the complainant is the rightful owner of the said land as the same is purchased through registered sale deed. It has further been alleged that two proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. were initiated between the accused No. 2 and the complainant numbered as case to be M. Case No. 1414/2002 and M-1415/2002 and both were transferred to the court of Accused No. 1, Yatindra Prasad, the Executive Magistrate, Ranchi and further hearing both the parties. while dealing with M. Case No. 1414/02, against accused No. 2, Kishun Prasad Verma was allowed to be dropped by Sri Yatindra Prasad, learned -2- Executive Magistrate, Ranchi and in Case No. M-1415/2002 against the complainant intentionally and mala fide an order was passed directing him to be executed a bond of Rs. 1000/- for maintaining peace for one year vide order dated 29.3.2003. In the aforesaid order, the Opp. party No. 2 had made a totally uncalled for and defamatory remarks against the behavior and character of the complainant, which is being reproduced verbatim:- "VIDHWAN ADHIVAKTA KE TARK SE SPAST HOTA HAI KI VIPAKSHI JHAGRALU PRAKRITI KE VEYAKTI HAI."

4. Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a practicing advocate of this court. He submits that in a proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C., the O.P. No. 2 has observed against the petitioner that he is a quarrelsome person. He further submits that in view of this observation in the order, the case under Section 500 IPC has been made out against the O.P. No. 2 and the learned court has wrongly not taken cognizance against the O.P. No. 2. He further submits that the said order was assailed by the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 33 of 2013 and the revisional court by order dated

26.11.2013 dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the order of the learned trial court, which is against the spirit of Section 500 of IPC.

5. Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty, defamatory language used by a judge to an advocate is not an official duty and Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not applicable. To buttress his argument, he relied in the case of B.S. Shambhu Versus T.S. Krishnaswamy, reported in (1983) 1 SCC 11.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Rishav Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits that the said observation of the O.P. No. 2 was expunged by the learned Judicial Commissioner, in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2005 by the judgment dated 19.07.2010. He further submits that the punishment for violation of Section 500 IPC is maximum two years, wherein the complaint case was filed in the year 2011 and in this view, Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. is attracted and this aspect of the matter has been duly considered by the learned revisional court and rightly the revision petition was dismissed. He further submits that Section 77 of the IPC is also in favour of the petitioner. On these grounds, he submits that there is no merit in this petition.

7. Mr. S.K. S rivatava, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State -3- submits that the learned court has rightly dismissed the revision petition.

8. In view of the above submissions of the parties, the court has gone through the materials available on record including the contents of the complaint as well orders of the learned trial court and the learned revisional court. It is an admitted fact that in deciding the proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C., the O.P. No. 2 has passed the order, wherein he has observed that the petitioner is a quarrelsome person and the said observation was expunged by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2005 by judgment dated 19.07.2010. When expunction is there, there is no question of calling upon the O.P. No. 2 to face the trail under Section 500 IPC.

9. In view of expunction, lebel is not there against the petitioner. Further the learned court has rightly considered that the punishment for offence under Section 500 IPC is maximum for two years and in that view of the matter under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. the limitation for taking cognizance for an offence is three years. Admittedly, the observation was of the year 2003 and the expunction was already there of the year 2010, however, the complaint case was filed in the year 2011. The cognizance has been taken against Kishun Prasad Verma considering that he has displayed the said observation in the year 2011. In that view of the matter, the learned revisional court has rightly taken the help of Section 468 of Cr.P.C. Further Section 77 of IPC further protects a judge.

10. In the judgment, relied by Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner the facts are otherwise, as there was no expunction by the competent authority and on that observation the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not attracted, as such, said judgment is not helping the petitioner.

11. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the court finds that there is no merit in this petition, accordingly, the same is dismissed. Amitesh/- (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)