PATNA, India, June 18 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on June 17:

Heard Mr. Naresh Dikshit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The present petition is being preferred under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, the 'Cr.P.C.') for setting aside the order dated 13.04.2022 passed in Narpatganj P.S. Case No. 129 of 2018, G.R. No. 653 of 2018 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria, whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offences under section 153 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, the 'I.P.C.') and section 125 of the Representation of People Act (hereinafter referred to as the "R.P. Act") and issued summon against the petitioner.

3. The brief case of the prosecution as it appears from the written information of Circle Officer, Narpatganj, District - Araria, that on 09.03.2018, while addressing a meeting in the campus of the High School, Narpatganj, the petitioner, who was at that point of time president of Bhartiya Janata Party, Bihar (in short the 'BJP'), gave provoking public speech which was in violation of the Model Code of Conduct. It is further alleged that petitioner gave hatred speech against the RJD candidate namely, Md. Sarfaraz Alam to the extent that if Md. Sarfaraz Alam wins the election in that case Araria will become the centre of ISIS.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid written information, police registered Narpatganj P.S. Case No. 129 of 2018 against the petitioner for the offences under section 153A of the IPC and section 125 of the R.P. Act and submitted a charge-sheet, accordingly, on the basis of available materials, learned jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance for the offences punishable under section 153 of the I.P.C. and 125 of the R.P. Act.

5. Mr. Naresh Dikshit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, at the relevant point in time, was the BJP State President, and presently he is the Minister of State for Home Affairs, Government of India, implicated falsely with the present case out of oblique and ulterior political motive.

6. It is submitted by Mr. Dikshit that written information itself suggests that no name of any religion or community was taken by the petitioner. No illegal act was done by this petitioner also as to constitute the offence under section 153 of the I.P.C. It is submitted that the complaint was not made by the RJD candidate directly rather in connivance with Circle Officer, the present case was lodged against the petitioner. It is submitted that ISIS is a militant group and is not connected with any particular religion.

7. It is further submitted by learned counsel that cognizance is barred by the provision of limitation also.

8. It is submitted that in view of the allegation, no prima-facie case is made out, and, therefore, the impugned order of cognizance dated 13.04.2022, is fit to be set- aside/quashed by importing the legal ratio as available through State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335].

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NiMxNzI3OSMyMDIzIzEjTg==-wDxk10mAXV4=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.