The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has rejected an application observing that the false and frivolous complaint has been filed by the applicant only to gain cheap popularity, which cannot be permitted in any condition in a garb of the application filed under Section 482 CrPC.
A Single Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta passed this order while hearing an application under section 482 filed by Brahmendra Pratap Singh Maurya.
The application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed against the order dated 10.10.2022 passed by the court of Additional Session Judge/Fast Track, Lucknow, by means of which Criminal Revision preferred by the revisionist has been rejected.
It is further prayed for quashing the order dated 25.7.2016 passed by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow thereby rejecting the complaint case at the admission stage.
The facts of the case are that on 4.7.2016, the applicant had filed a complaint case against the private opposite parties disclosing that on 24.6.2016, the applicant through whatsapp message came to know that in the Udaipur Edition dated 23.6.2016 of Dainik Bhasker newspaper, a news item was published under the heading of “Sangh Parivar ki Nazar me Akbar ke baad ab Samrat Ashok Khalnaayak, aur Baudh Rashtra drohi.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that after reading the news item/article not only the revisionist but a large class of people became perturbed and felt highly harassed and humiliated.
The contents of the news item/article were deliberate and malicious and are intended to outrage religious feelings of a class of people by insulting its religion and religious beliefs. This news item/article promoted enmity between different groups on the ground of religion, race etc and is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony and is also prejudicial to national integration.
The applicant is a law abiding and responsible person of the society filed a complaint in a court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow rejected the complaint under Section 203 CrPC on the ground that offence is not instituted in the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Therefore, the Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the complaint on the basis of territorial jurisdiction.
Against the order of the CJM the applicant approached before the revisional court and the revisional court also wrongly rejected the complaint of the applicant without appreciating true perspective. Therefore, being aggrieved with the rejection of the complaint, the applicant approached the Court by filing an application under Section 482 CrPC.
In support of his submission counsel for the applicant place reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs Rajesh Agarwal reported in (1999) 8 SCC 686, in which it has been held that it was an erroneous view that the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence must necessarily have territorial jurisdiction to try the case as well. The provisions of Sections 177 and 179 of the Code do not trump the powers of any court to take cognizance of the offence.
A.G.A submitted that counsel for the applicant has neither annexed paper cutting nor whats app message with the application.
He further submitted that after appreciating the entire evidence available on record and submissions, the trial court and the revisional court had rejected the complaint of the applicant on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. Thus, there is no irregularity, illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the trial court and revisional court, therefore, the application under Section 482 CrPC is liable to be rejected.
“On the perusal of the record it appears that counsel for the applicant has not annexed the whatsapp chat and Udaipur Edition dated 23.6.2016 of Dainik Bhasker newspaper. As per submission of the counsel for the applicant offence under Section 153 -A and 505 IPC is made out against the opposite parties.
Counsel for the applicant has not annexed whatsapp chat and paper cutting, therefore, the counsel for the applicant failed to show how the enmity is promoted by the opposite party no 4 between different groups on the ground of religion race etc. and failed to show how the opposite party nos 2 and 3 are involved in the matter.
On the perusal of the mandatory provision of Section 196 (1) CrPC it is clear that before prosecuting any person under Section 153 -A and 505 IPC, sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government is required. Without taking any mandatory sanction, no court shall take cognizance of such offence. Thus, the false and frivolous complaint has been filed by the applicant only to gain cheap popularity, which cannot be permitted in any condition in a garb of the application filed under Section 482 CrPC”, the Court observed while rejecting the application.