Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said that calling a man “Miyan-Tiyan” and “Pakistani” would be in poor taste but does not amount to hurting religious sentiments.

A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside a Jharkhand High Court order that declined to quash criminal proceedings pending before a Bokaro court against appellant Hari Nandan Singh.

An FIR was registered at Bokaro Sector-IV police station based on a complaint by the informant, who was posted as an Urdu Translator and Acting Clerk (Right to Information) in the Sub-Divisional Office, Chas.

The informant alleged that the appellant had sought certain information from the Additional Collector-cum-First Appellate Authority, Bokaro, which was subsequently dispatched to him. However, the appellant later filed an appeal before the Additional Collector-cum-First Appellate Authority, allegedly after manipulating the documents sent to him by the office through registered post and making false allegations of manipulation in the documents.

In light of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Public Information Officer, Chas, the Additional Collector-cum-First Appellate Authority directed the informant to personally serve the information to the appellant.

On November 18, 2020, at about 1:20 PM, the informant, accompanied by the messenger of the Sub-Divisional Office, Chas, visited the appellant’s residence to hand over the information.

The appellant initially refused to accept the documents but, upon the informant’s insistence, eventually accepted them. However, he allegedly abused the informant by referring to his religion and used criminal force against him while he was discharging his official duties, intending to intimidate and deter him from performing his duties as a public servant.

The informant subsequently reported the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas, who, upon oral direction, instructed the lodging of the FIR against the appellant.

After completing the investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 298, 504, 506, 353, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

On July 8, 2021, the Magistrate took cognizance of the said offences and summoned the appellant.

Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an application for discharge under Section 239 CrPC. By an order dated March 24, 2022, the Magistrate held that there was sufficient material available on record for framing charges against the appellant under Sections 353, 298, and 504 of the IPC. However, the Magistrate further held that there was a lack of evidence for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 406 IPC.

The appellant preferred a criminal revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Bokaro, which was dismissed by an order dated February 20, 2023. Thereafter, the appellant approached the high court, which dismissed his criminal miscellaneous petition.

Before the apex court, the appellant's counsel submitted that when the ingredients of Sections 353, 298, and 504 IPC are juxtaposed with the relevant portions of the complaint, it is easily discernible that no offence whatsoever has been made out under these provisions.

Further, the charge under Section 353 did not arise against the appellant, and the offences under Sections 298 and 504 IPC were not compoundable. He, therefore, submitted that the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bokaro, ought to have allowed the application seeking discharge and closed the proceedings against the appellant.

He also argued that the high court was not right in sustaining the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, and thereby dismissing his plea. The counsel further said that the appellant, presently aged about 80 years, has been forced to face criminal proceedings at this stage of his life.

The state counsel, on the other hand, argued that there was no merit in the appeal and that the impugned order did not warrant interference.

The bench, however, observed that in light of the offences alleged against the appellant it did not find that any ingredients of the offences alleged as against the appellant found place in FIR registered as against him.

A bare perusal of the case revealed that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the appellant under Sections 353, 298, and 504 IPC were not made out. Evidently, there was no assault or use of force by the appellant to attract Section 353 IPC, the court said.

Therefore, the high court ought to have discharged the appellant under Section 353 IPC, it ruled.

"Further, the appellant is accused of hurting the religious feelings of the informant by calling him 'Miyan-Tiyan' and 'Pakistani.' Undoubtedly, the statements made are poor taste. However, it does not amount to hurting the religious sentiments of the informant," the bench said.

The court opined that the appellant should also be discharged under Section 298 IPC.

"Additionally, we find that the appellant cannot be charged under Section 504 IPC, as there was no act on his part that could have provoked a breach of peace and accordingly, deserves to be discharged under Section 504 IPC as well," the bench said.

The court set aside the high court’s order, which had sustained the trial court's decision, and discharged the appellant from all the offences alleged against him.

Case Title: Hari Nandan Singh Vs State of Jharkhand