Cri. M.P. Case No. 4938 of 2001 with Cri. M.P. No. 1179 of 2005. Case: Aveek Sarkar and Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr.. Jharkhand High CEGAT & CESTAT High Court
| Case Number | Cri. M.P. Case No. 4938 of 2001 with Cri. M.P. No. 1179 of 2005 |
| Counsel | For Petitioners: Nilesh Kumar and S. P. Roy, Advs. and For Respondents: A. K. Sahani, Rajesh Kumar, D. K. Bharti and Amita Sarkar, Advs. |
| Judges | D. K. Sinha, J. |
| Issue | Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) - Sections 153A, 153B, 120B; Criminal Procedure Code (2 of 1974) - Sections 482, 173, 196(1)(a), 196(1)(b) |
| Citation | 2006 CriLJ 4211 |
| Judgement Date | May 09, 2006 |
| Court | Jharkhand High CEGAT & CESTAT High Court |
Order:
-
The petitioners have preferred their petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the quashing of Kotwali (Ranchi) P.S. Case No. 376 of 2000 as also the order passed by the C.J.M., Ranchi whereby and whereunder it was directed to issue warrants of arrest against them with further prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding.
-
To re-capitulate, the brief facts of the case are that a Complaint Case No. 572 of 2000 was filed by the Complainant Ram Prakash Tiwari, National President of Vishwa Hindu Sanatan Dharma Prachar Prasar Sewa Trust i.e. the Opposite Party No.2 in both the petitions herein alleging inter alia that on 8-9-2000 while he was organizing a meeting at Branch Office, Ranchi a copy of the English Daily 'The Telegraph', Calcutta Edition dated 8-1-2000 was made over to him and on perusing the same he was shocked to see an advertisement of ONIDA TV showing Goddess Durga carrying various models of ONIDA T.V. manufactured by M/s Mirc Electronics Ltd in her hands. It was alleged that by the said advertisement the accused persons of the complaint case jointly and deliberately used Goddess Durga as a model for displaying their product which hurt the complainant and destroyed, damaged and defiled his sentiments as well as his religious feelings since the Goddess had been exhibited as model like other models therefore, the advertisement in question was an insult to Hindu religion which malignantly provocated the Hindu people knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause the offence of rioting, breach of public tranquillity to which a legal notice was sent to the accused persons of the complaint on 15-9-2001 and thereafter the complainant approached the Kotwali Police to lodge a case which was refused and only thereafter the complaint case was filed in the Court of C.J.M., Ranchi on 22-9-2000 which was forwarded to the Kotwali P.S. under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to institute and investigate the case and accordingly it was registered as Kotwali P.S. Case No.376/2000 on 19-11-2000 for the offence under Sections 153/153A/153B/295(A)/293/297/298/501 /504/505(2)/120B of the Indian Indian Penal Code as against the accused persons.
-
It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner, Gullu Mirchandani, Managing Director-cum-Chairman of M/s. Mirc Electronics Ltd., manufacturer of ONIDA T.V. that by publication of advertisement in the English Newspaper, 'The Telegraph', commercial endeavour was made by the Advertising Company to promote the sale of T.V. and there was no malicious intention to hurt the religious feelings of the concerned. All the accused persons viz. petitioners herein are Hindu by religion and faith and therefore, it was beyond their comprehension even to think that they ever intended to sully the image of their God or Goddess and the underlying object of the advertisement in question apparently was only to promote the sale of the products. In any Company, advertisements are entrusted to advertising agencies and in the present case also it was entrusted to accused No. 5 (not the petitioners) i.e. the owner of advertising agency namely, 'Ogilvy and Mateur'. It was nowhere alleged that the petitioner Managing Director-cum-Chairman herein had vetted the advertisement in question nor it was produced before him for approval. The traders used to name their products after God/Goddess in their belief that they may succeed in their venture with their divine blessings. Similarly no criminal conspiracy has been depicted in the complaint petition as against to hurt the religious feelings of others and accordingly the advertisement in question was published. As a matter of fact the present case was brought about with the vested interest, personal benefit and cheap popularity.
-
Advancing his argument, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that none of the alleged sections in which the complaint case/F.I.R. was lodged is applicable as against any of the petitioners in the present case hence the entire criminal proceedings initiated as against the petitioners was an abuse of process of Court as absolutely no criminal charge was made out against any of them.
-
Learned Counsel further submitted that Sections 153, 153A and 153B are not at all applicable in the instant case against the petitioners as because not a single ingredient of the said offences has been attracted against the petitioners in the Complaint Petition. As a matter of fact the...
To continue reading
Request your trial