Avinash Thakur v. The State of Jharkhand

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner For the State : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate : Mrs. Lily Sahay, Addl. P.P. ….. By the Court:-

#2. Heard the parties. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 08.09.2023 in connection with Giridih (T) P.S. Case No. 132 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1673 of 2023 whereby and where under the learned SDJM, Giridih has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 385/500/501/502/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

#3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the Editor-in-Chief of the Newspaper in the name and style of ‘Khabar Mantra’, published defamatory news items against the informant in furtherance of common intention with 1 Cr.M.P. No.1479 of 2024 ( 2025:JHHC:34970 ) the co-accused persons who were inimical to the informant who at the relevant time was posted as Sub-Judge in the Civil Court, Giridih. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Giridih (T) P.S. Case No. 132 of 2020 and took up investigation of the case. After completion of the investigation, police found the allegations inter-alia against the petitioner to be true and submitted charge sheet inter-alia against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Section 385/500/501/502/34 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of the charge sheet, the learned S.D.J.M., Giridih has taken cognizance of the said offences inter-alia against the petitioner.

#4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Subramanian Swamy Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law & Ors. reported in (2016) 7 SCC 221 submits that in para-207 thereof which reads as under:- “207. Another aspect required to be addressed pertains to issue of summons. Section 199 CrPC envisages filing of a complaint in court. In case of criminal defamation neither can any FIR be filed nor can any direction be issued under Section 156(3) CrPC. The offence has its own gravity and hence, the responsibility of the Magistrate is more. In a way, it is immense at the time of issue of process. Issue of process, as has been held in Rajindra Nath Mahato v. T. Ganguly [Rajindra Nath Mahato v. T. Ganguly, (1972) 1 SCC 450 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 206], is a matter of judicial determination and before issuing a process, the Magistrate has to examine the complainant. In Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha [Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 499 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 149] it has been held that judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. The Court, though in a different context, has observed that there lies responsibility and duty on the 2 Cr.M.P. No.1479 of 2024 ( 2025:JHHC:34970 ) Magistracy to find whether the accused concerned should be legally responsible for the offence charged for. Only on satisfying that the law casts liability or creates offence against the juristic person or the persons impleaded, then only process would be issued. At that stage the court would be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process lest it would be an instrument in the hands of the private complaint as vendetta to harass the persons needlessly. Vindication of majesty of justice and maintenance of law and order in the society are the prime objects of criminal justice but it would not be the means to wreak personal vengeance. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate [Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400], a two-Judge Bench has held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in no uncertain manner has held that in a case of criminal defamation an FIR cannot be filed in view of the bar under Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which debars any court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence or any other person as per the Proviso of Section 191(1) of the Cr.P.C. It is next submitted that the offences punishable under Section 500, 501 and 502 are under Chapter –XXI of the Indian Penal Code. So, in the absence of any complaint being filed, the registration of F.I.R. in respect of the said offences and taking cognizance of the said offences by the Magistrate otherwise than of any complaint made is not sustainable in law.

#5. So far as the offence punishable under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is submitted by the learned 3 Cr.M.P. No.1479 of 2024 ( 2025:JHHC:34970 ) counsel for the petitioner that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of the petitioner either individually or in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons putting or attempted to put any person in fear of injury nor there is any allegation against the petitioner of committing extortion by inducing any person put in fear to deliver any property etc. to any person in a dishonest manner. It is next submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are false and no defamatory material was published by the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

#6. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer but fairly submits that an F.I.R. cannot be filed in respect of the offences appearing in Chapter –XXI of the Indian Penal Code in view of the bar under Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

#7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, in view of the settled principle of law that the cognizance of offence under Chapter –XXI of the Indian Penal Code which includes the offence punishable under Section 500, 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code can only be taken upon a complaint being filed. The undisputed fact remains that in this case no complaint has been filed by anyone rather the learned S.D.J.M., Giridih has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 500, 501 & 4 Cr.M.P. No.1479 of 2024 ( 2025:JHHC:34970 ) 502 based on an F.I.R. consequent upon submission of charge sheet. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the order taking cognizance so far as the offences punishable under Section 500, 501 & 502 having not been taken on the basis of any complaint filed, the same is not sustainable in law.

#8. So far as the offence punishable under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code are as under:- (i) the accused has put or attempted to put any person in fear of injury; and (ii) the accused did so to commit extortion.

#9. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioner of the petitioner having done any act or omission in order to commit extortion. In the absence of that, 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 385 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner.

#10. In view of the discussions made above as the cognizance in respect of the offences punishable under Section 500, 501 & 502 of the Indian Penal Code are bad in law having been taken by the learned S.D.J.M., Giridih otherwise than on a complaint and as the offence punishable under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner even if the entire 5 Cr.M.P. No.1479 of 2024 ( 2025:JHHC:34970 ) allegations made against the petitioner in the F.I.R., the materials collected during the investigation and the charge sheet are considered to be true in their entirety, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 08.09.2023 in connection with Giridih (T) P.S. Case No. 132 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1673 of 2023 whereby and where under the learned SDJM, Giridih has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 385/500/501/502/34 of the Indian Penal Code, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

#11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 08.09.2023 in connection with Giridih (T) P.S. Case No. 132 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1673 of 2023 whereby and where under the learned SDJM, Giridih has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 385/500/501/502/34 of the Indian Penal Code, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

#12. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 12th November, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- Uploaded on 26/11/2025 (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 6 Cr.M.P. No.1479 of 2024