# Judith Maria Monika Killer@ Sangeeta J.K v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 363
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-08
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 8240 of 2023
- **Bench:** Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/judith-maria-monika-killer-sangeeta-j-k-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47625
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 504 - Constitution India,1950 -
Article
227
-
Petitioner
challenged
the
summoning order dated 24.09.2021 by Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, under Section 504
IPC in Complaint Case No. 8564/2018, and its
affirmation by revisional court on 31.05.2023.
Complainant, an advocate and RTI activist,
alleged that petitioner, Executive Director of
Kiran Society, insulted him by calling him "mad"
during an inquiry on 19.05.2017, initiated due to
his complaint against the society's misuse of
funds. St.ments under Sections 200 and 202
Cr.P.C. alleged insult and abusive words in
public. Petitioner argued no offence under
Section 504 IPC was made out, as the remark
lacked intent to provoke breach of public peace,
and the complaint was filed after a 16-month
delay, barred by Section 468 Cr.P.C. Relying on
Vikram Johar Vs St. of U.P., AIR 2019 SC 297,
and Fiona Shrikhande Vs St. of Maharashtra,
(2013) 14 SCC 44, court held that Section 504
requires intentional insult of a degree to
provoke breach of peace or commission of an
offence. The stray remark, made in the context
of an inquiry, was inappropriate but lacked
criminal intent. Courts below failed to apply
judicial mind under Sections 203 and 204
Cr.P.C., as the evidence did not establish a
prima facie case. Summoning order and
revisional order set aside; proceedings quashed.
Petition allowed. (Paras 9-20)

Petition Allowed.

Case Law Cited:

## Text

3 All. Judith Maria Monika Killer @ Sangeeta J.K. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
363
the Constitution of India, hence the
petition is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 363
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABABAD 08.01.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 8240 of 2023
(Criminal)

Judith Maria Monika Killer@ Sangeeta J.K.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Surendra Yadav

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 504 - Constitution India,1950 -
Article
227
-
Petitioner
challenged
the
summoning order dated 24.09.2021 by Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, under Section 504
IPC in Complaint Case No. 8564/2018, and its
affirmation by revisional court on 31.05.2023.
Complainant, an advocate and RTI activist,
alleged that petitioner, Executive Director of
Kiran Society, insulted him by calling him "mad"
during an inquiry on 19.05.2017, initiated due to
his complaint against the society's misuse of
funds. St.ments under Sections 200 and 202
Cr.P.C. alleged insult and abusive words in
public. Petitioner argued no offence under
Section 504 IPC was made out, as the remark
lacked intent to provoke breach of public peace,
and the complaint was filed after a 16-month
delay, barred by Section 468 Cr.P.C. Relying on
Vikram Johar Vs St. of U.P., AIR 2019 SC 297,
and Fiona Shrikhande Vs St. of Maharashtra,
(2013) 14 SCC 44, court held that Section 504
requires intentional insult of a degree to
provoke breach of peace or commission of an
offence. The stray remark, made in the context
of an inquiry, was inappropriate but lacked
criminal intent. Courts below failed to apply
judicial mind under Sections 203 and 204
Cr.P.C., as the evidence did not establish a
prima facie case. Summoning order and
revisional order set aside; proceedings quashed.
Petition allowed. (Paras 9-20)

Petition Allowed.

Case Law Cited:

1. Vikram Johar Vs St. of U.P., AIR 2019 SC
297, Criminal Appeal No. 759/2019, decided on
26.04.2019 (Paras 9, 10, 19)

2. Fiona Shrikhande Vs St. of Maharashtra,
(2013) 14 SCC 44, Criminal Appeal No.
1231/2013, decided on 22.08.2013 (Paras 9, 16,
18, 19)

3. Pepsi Food Limited Vs Special Judicial
Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 (Para 16)

4. Dr. Divya Nand Yadav Vs St. of U.P., Criminal
Appeal No. 9188/2022, decided on 20.04.2023
(Paras 16, 17)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Surendra Yadav, learned counsel for the
respondent and learned A.G.A. for the
State.

2. This petition under Article 227 has
been filed challenging the order dated
24.09.2021 passed by Chief Judicial
Magistrate in Complaint Case No. 8564 of
2018 (Dashrath Kumar Dixit Vs. Sangeeta
J.K) summoning the accused under section
504 I.P.C. and further to set aside order
dated 31.05.2023 passed in Criminal
Revision No. 280 of 2021 by which the
summoning order was affirmed. A further
relief of quashing the entire proceedings of
the complaint case has also been sought by
means of this petition.
364 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. The relevant facts are as below.

Dashrath
Kumar
Dixit
(the
respondent herein) filed a complaint case
against Sangeeta J.K., Executive Director,
Kiran Society and ten others under section
500 I.P.C. with the allegations in brief as
below:-

That the complainant is an
Advocate and has been working for the
welfare of handicapped weaker sections
and for human rights and is also a R.T.I.
activist. Kiran Society has been obtaining
funds from foreign countries in the name of
welfare of handicapped people, but they
have been misusing those funds and
exploiting them;

That the complainant therefore
complained to the District Magistrate,
Varanasi
by
an
application
dated
15.05.2017.
The
District
Magistrate,
Varanasi instituted an inquiry and Rajesh
Kumar
Mishra,
District
Divyangjan
Sashaktikaran Adhikari, was deputed as the
Inquiry Officer;

That the Inquiry Officer called
parties
to
H.R.T.C.
Auditorium
on
19.05.2017 in connection with the Inquiry
and in the presence of the parties, the
complainant was insulted. The production
of evidence during the inquiry was
recorded by opposite party no.11 -
Divyangjan Sashaktikaran Adhikari that is
Rajesh Kumar Mishra. The video can be
obtained officially;

That during the inquiry, on
19.05.2017, in the presence of all the
persons in the Auditorium, the O.P. No. 1,
Sangeeta J.K. addressed the complainant in
following words "this person is mad". The
complainant, who is an Advocate and has
been practising for last many years,
objected and asked the O.P. No. 11 to
include this fact in the inquiry report, but
he paid no heed;

That one Raju Kumar Kanaujiya,
was threatened by Sangeeta J.K. in front of
all the others;

That the Inquiry conducted by
O.P. No.11 is doubtful as he never
considered the important aspects of the
matter;

That the O.P. Nos. 2 -10, under
the patronage of O.P. No.11, and the O.P.
No.1-Sangeeta
J.K.
regularly
keep
threatening the complainant through letters
in the office and outside the office in
various ways. They regularly mislead the
officers of the department;

And that the complainant was
deliberately insulted and was put to mental
trauma, therefore, a case be registered
against them and the passport and visa of
Sangeeta J.K. be seized so that she cannot
escape to foreign country.

4. On the basis of above allegations,
the
court
proceeded
to
record
the
statements of Dashrath Kumar Dixit under
section 200 Cr.P.C. and of Vinod Kumar
Goswami, Anil Kumar Gupta and Santosh
Kumar Pandey under section 202 Cr.P.C. A
number of documents were produced at
that stage.

5. The C.J.M. proceeded to hear the
complainant and passed summoning order
on 24.09.2021. By this summoning order,
only O.P. No.1 -Sangeeta J.K,, Executive
Director, Kiran Society,was summoned
under section 504 I.P.C.

6. The accused Sangeeta J.K.
preferred a revision before District Judge,
Varanasi, assailing the summoning order.
Both the sides were heard, the revisional
court affirmed the order of summoning by
passing an order on 31.05.2023.

7. Now, the accused is before this
Court assailing both the orders.
3 All. Judith Maria Monika Killer @ Sangeeta J.K. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
365

8. The submissions of the petitioner
are that the O.P. No. 2 filed a false and
frivolous case. The incident allegedly
happened
on
19.05.2017.
And
the
complaint has been filed more than a year
therafter i.e. on 24.09.2017. Further that the
complainant in his statement under section
200 Cr.P.C. did not show anything which
could have been considered as constituting
an offence under section 504 I.P.C. And
even the witnesses examined under section
202 Cr.P.C. did not state any material fact
which can be taken as coming within the
definition of section 504 I.P.C. It is further
submitted that the complainant had filed
the complaint under section 500 I.P.C., and
from the evidence produced by him, no
offence under section 504 I.P.C. or any
other is made out. It is next contended that
there is nothing to suggest that the
complainant was intentionally insulted or
provoked intending and knowing that such
act will cause him to break the public
peace. The complaint has been filed after
lapse of one year and four months from the
date of incident with a view to harass him.
Another contention is that the Magistrate
took
cognizance
by
summoning
the
accused-petitioner on 24.09.2021 under
section
504
I.P.C.
Therefore,
the
proceeding against him is barred by
provisions of section 468 Cr.P.C., further
that the witnesses Vinod Goswami, Santosh
Kumar Pandey, Anil Kumar Gupta are exemployees of the Kiran Society and
therefore are interested in harassing her.
They cannot be relied upon and that they
have colluded with the petitioner for
initiating this malicious prosecution.

9. The petitioner relies upon a
judgment of Supreme Court given in
Vikram Johar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Aironline 2019 SC 297 passed in
Criminal Appeal No. 759 of 2019,
decided on 26.04.2019. In the aforesaid
case before the Supreme Court, the facts
were that the accused came with 2 -3
unknown persons, one of whom was
holding revolver and he abused him in
filthy language. The complainant was
rescued by a neighbour when the accused
persons were about to assault him. The
accused was summoned. Summoning order
was challenged. In the aforesaid judgment,
the Supreme Court referred to a judgment
given in Fiona Shrikhande Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Another 2013 14 SCC
44 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1231
of 2013 (arising out of S.L.P. (Cri). No.
382 of 2013), decided on 22.08.2013,
wherein it was held that the Magistrate is
merely concerned with the allegations
made in the complaint and has only to
prima facie satisfy whether there are
sufficient ground to proceed against the
accused. In paragraph 13 of the judgment
in
Fiona
Shrikhande
(supra),
the
Supreme Court had noticed the ingredients
of section 504 I.P.C. in following words:

"13. Section 504 IPC comprises
of
following
ingredients,
viz.,
(a)
intentional insult, (b) the insult must be
such as to give provocation to the person
insulted, and (c) the accused must intend
or know that such provocation would
cause another to break the public peace or
to commit any other offence. The
intentional insult must be of such a degree
that should provoke a person to break the
public peace or to commit any other
offence. The person who intentionally
insults intending or knowing it to be likely
that it will give provocation to any other
person and such provocation will cause to
break the public peace or to commit any
other offence, in such a situation, the
ingredients of Section 504 are satisfied.
One of the essential elements constituting
366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the offence is that there should have been
an
act
or
conduct
amounting
to
intentional insult and the mere fact that
the accused abused the complainant, as
such, is not sufficient by itself to warrant a
conviction under Section 504 IPC."

10. The Supreme Court in Vikram
Johar (supra) case observed in para-26 as
below:

"26. Now, we revert back to the
allegations in the complaint against the
appellant. The allegation is that appellant
with two or three other unknown persons,
one of whom was holding a revolver, came
to the complainant's house and abused
him in filthy language and attempted to
assault him and when some neighbours
arrived there the appellant and the other
persons accompanying him fled the spot.
The above allegation taking on its face
value does not satisfy the ingredients of
Sections 504 and 506 as has been
enumerated by this Court in the above two
judgments. The intentional insult must be
of such a degree that should provoke a
person to break the public peace or to
commit any other offence. The mere
allegation that appellant came and abused
the complainant does not satisfy the
ingredients as laid down in paragraph
No.13 of the judgment of this Court in
Fiona Shrikhande (Supra)."

The Court allowed the appeal and
set aside the judgment given by High Court
as well as by the trial court.

11. I went through the material on
record including the copy of the statements
given by the complainant under section 200
Cr.P.C. and the statements given by his
witnesses under section 202 Cr.P.C. It is
important to keep in mind that main
contention of the petitioner is that no
offence under section 504 I.P.C. is made
out as there has not been any intentional
insult
which
may
be
construed
as
provocation for breaking public peace or to
commit an offence.

12. The petitioner has attracted
attention of this Court to relevant portions
of statements of the complainant as below:-

"मैं ज्यों ही िुछ िहिे िा रहा था कि िुछ
उल्टा सीिा िरिे लर्े मााँ-बहि िी र्द्दी-र्द्दी र्ाकलयााँ देिे
लर्े, मेरे द्वारा कमश्रा िी से िहिे पर उन्होंिे िहा कि मैंिे िुछ
िहीं सुिा। मुझे पार्ल बोला र्या था।"

His witness P.W.1- Vinod Kumar
Goswami stated as below:-

"अकिवक्ता दशरथ िुमार दीकक्षत िो र्री सर्ा
में पार्ल व अपशब्दों िा प्रयोर् किया।"

PW2-Anil Kumar Gupta stated as
below:-

"कदिााँि 19.05.2017 िो N.R.T.C.
आकिटोररयम में किरण सोसायटी िे पक्षों िो बुलाया र्या
किसमें कविलांर् अकििारी, सोसायटी िे सदस्ट्य तथा मेरे
अकिवक्ता दशरथ िुमार दीकक्षत उपकस्ट्थत थे। िहााँ सबिे
समक्ष मुझे तथा मेरे अकिवक्ता दशरथ िुमार दीकक्षत िो
अपशब्द िहा र्या तथा पार्ल िहा र्या। "

Another witness Santosh Kumar
Pandey stated as below:-

"िााँच िे दौराि हमारे अकिवक्ता श्री दशरथ
दीकक्षत िी िो संर्ीता िे० िे० द्वारा पार्ल बोला र्या तथा
बेइज्ित किया र्या। "

13. There is no dispute that on the
basis of above statements the learned trial
court gave an opinion that prima facie
offence under section 504 IPC is made out
and ordered for summoning of the accused
Sangeeta J.K., Executive Director of Kiran
Society.

14. Before the revisional court, the
contention of the accused revisionist was
that mere use of insulting words without
3 All. Judith Maria Monika Killer @ Sangeeta J.K. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
367
intention to make the person addressed to
commit breach of peace will not attract
section 504 IPC and that even if the
allegations made are taken as true, no
offence is made out. Further, one of the
contentions is that besides her, a number of
other persons have been arrayed as accused
and the complainant has not imputed any
specific role to any of them and that the
trial court passed the order without
application of judicial mind. Perusal of
impugned order demonstrates that after
noting down all the averments of the
revisionist, the learned court of revision,
briefly dealt with the main issue i.e.,
whether offence under section 504 IPC was
made out or not. The revisional court gave
an opinion that as in front of a number of
persons, the accused Sangeeta J.K. said that
this person (the complainant) is mad,
therefore, the offence under section 504
IPC is made out and refused to interfere in
the order of summoning passed by the trial
court.

15. In my opinion, two main issues
are involved in this matter. Firstly, from the
statements given by the complainant and
his witnesses, if presumed as truthful,
whether offence under section 504 IPC is
made out? Secondly, whether the learned
Magistrate applied its judicial mind to
arrive at requisite satisfaction before he
decided to take cognizance.

The phrase 'sufficient ground to
proceed' has been treated at par with the
word 'satisfaction' which the Court/the
Magistrate is expected to arrive at, before
issuance of process in the background of
provisions of law under section 204 Cr.P.C.
Section 204 Cr.P.C. is a very first section in
Chapter XVI under the title "commencing
of proceedings before the Magistrates".
From this stage the Magistrate has to tread
very cautiously before jumping to take
cognizance
and
proceed
against
the
accused. On one hand, there is law which
says that the Magistrate has to find out
whether commission of an offence is
disclosed from the material before him and
that he has to go through the evidence and
apply his judicial mind for this limited
purpose, on the other hand the law says that
he has to avoid meticulous analysis of the
evidence and has not to hold a mini trial.
There cannot be two opinions that a
Magistrate shall not proceed in a casual and
cursory manner. He is, of course expected
to apply its judicial mind and the
application of judicial mind suggests that
he is well within his powers to go through
the evidence for the purpose of ascertaining
the
credibility,
truthfulness,
inherent
improbabilities, if any, although he has to
refrain
from
threadbare
analysis
of
evidence or splitting of hairs. A Magistrate
ought to be prudent, a discerner and
realistic. A fine balance has to be
maintained in order to decide whether or
not to proceed any further. Section 203
Cr.P.C and Section 204 Cr.P.C. are two
sides of the same coin and here lies the real
test of a judicial mind.

16. This Court in Criminal Appeal
No. 9188 of 2022 (Dr. Divya Nand Yadav
and Another vs. State of U.P. and
Another) decided on 20.04.2023, equated
the word 'prima facie satisfaction' with the
sufficient ground to proceed on the basis of
the judgment of the Supreme Court passed
in Fiona Shrikhande vs. State of
Maharashtra and Another; (2013) 14
SCC 44. Further the relative scope of
Sections 203 and 204 Cr.P.C. were noted
and considered by the Supreme Court in
Pepsi Food Limited and another vs.
Special Judicial Magistrate and others;
(1998) 5 SCC 749, which said:-
368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"Summoning of an accused in a
criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal
law cannot be set into motion as a matter of
course. It is not that the complainant has to
bring only two witnesses to support his
allegations in the complaint to have the
criminal law set into motion. The order of
the magistrate summoning the accused
must reflect that he has applied his mind to
the facts of the case and the law applicable
thereto. He has to examine the nature of
allegations made in the complaint and the
evidence both oral and documentary in
support thereof and would that be sufficient
for the complainant to succeed in bringing
charge home to the accused. It is not that
the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the
time of recording of preliminary evidence
before
summoning
of
the
accused.
Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the
evidence brought on record and may even
himself put questions to the complainant
and his witnesses to elicit answers to find
out the truthfulness of the allegations or
otherwise and then examine if any offence
is prima facie committed by all or any of
the accused."

The Supreme Court emphasized
the need that the Magistrate should not sit
like a silent spectator.

In para no. 14 of the judgment of
Dr. Divya Nand Yadav and Another
(supra), this court has held as below:-

"14. The fact of the matter is
that the court shall not proceed in a
mechanical or a routine manner. It shall
apply its mind, which is called a judicial
mind and discretion as well. The court/the
Magistrate, though shall not go deep into
the evidence given and shall not weigh the
evidentiary value in a meticulous manner.
Except this rider, there is no other
obstacles before the court below for
arriving at the "prima facie satisfaction"
a word which can be equated with the
word "prima facie case".

17. In the aforesaid judgment in Dr.
Divya Nand Yadav and Another (supra),
this legal position has been reiterated that at
the time of summoing, the trial court has to
confine itself to the evidence produced on
behalf of the complainant, however when
the accused has been summoned and he
prefers a revision, the revisional court is at
an advantageous position in the sense that it
has opportunity to hear both the sides i.e.,
the complainant as well as the accused,
therefore the revisional court is in a better
position to take an independent view on the
basis of material before itself. Further this
court emphasised the need for conducting
of the inquiry as envisaged in section 202
Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate himself and the
pitfalls when the Magistrate does not play
the expected role and therefore is faced
with a situation where he may have to take
a one sided view on the basis of plain
statements given by the complainant and
his witnesses. The Allahabad High Court's
meaningful observations in para nos. 6 and
9 of the judgment in Dr. Divya Nand
(supra) are worth mention in this respect.

The para nos. 6 and 9 of the
aforesaid judgment are being reproduced
here.

"6. There is certain purpose
behind enacting this provision in this
manner. When a Magistrate who is
trained in law, himself asks the questions
he may elicit the facts which are nearer to
truth. Obviously then there are much
better chance to check the veracity of
allegations, the evaluation of evidence
before him and thereby come to the right
conclusion for summoning the real
culprits and at the same time putting his
foot down that no innocent person is
3 All. Judith Maria Monika Killer @ Sangeeta J.K. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
369
summoned unnecessarily. The purpose is
lost when this power is not utilized.

9. The phrase occurring in
Section 202 Cr.P.C. "inquire into the case
himself" enjoins the Magistrate that he
actually plays its part by examining the
witnesses himself, rather than depending
upon the statements which might be
clouded, cryptic, obscure or ambiguous
and sometime very direct and bald. The
experience in courts strengthens the
impression that more often then not
unsupervised, one sided statement may
have more to conceal than to reveal. It is
said that law is a living being. It grows
and develops according to the exigencies
of the times. It will not be out of context to
mention that the superior courts have
observed in a number of cases that the
trial courts ought to be quite alert when
they decide to take cognizance or summon
the accused persons, may be at the stage
of Section 204 Cr.P.C. or otherwise. The
superior courts have consistently kept on
cautioning
the
courts
to
be
quite
circumspect, careful, alert and wakeful
while putting the legal machinery in
motion. The vicissitudes of cases, peculiar
facts and situations do impact the
interpretations of law and contribute
towards the developments and progress of
legal arena."

18. Now I come to the question
whether an offence under section 504 IPC
is made out. In Fiona Shirkhande Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Another
(supra), the Supreme Court emphasised
that intentional insult must be such as to
give provocation to the person insulted to
break the public peace or to commit any
other offence. As alluded to earlier, the only
allegation is that in front of several others,
participating in the meeting, the accused
said that this person (the complainant) is
mad. This may be noted that these words
were uttered when both the sides were
called in connection with an inquiry which
was initiated on the basis of a number of
allegations made by the complainant
against the accused and her society.

19.

From
all
the
facts
and
circumstances, it appears that it was a stray
statement made in a careless manner, not
intending that it may provoke a person to
break the public peace or commit any other
offence. Even if, for the sake of argument,
uttering of such words are taken as
intentional insult however in my opinion
the same cannot be construed as of such
degree so as to provoke any person to cause
breach of peace. Circumstances suggest
that uttering of such words could be an
unintended spontaneous remark made in
the prevailing atmosphere in the backdrop
of number of allegations, which were flown
at the accused and her society. More often
than not, in informal atmosphere such
remarks may be carelessly thrown and may
even form part of casual conversation
having no criminal element for intentional
causing of breach of peace. Any such stray
statements made by any person, may be
inappropriate, improper and rude, however,
in my view, they do not bring the Act
within the four corners of section 504 as
defined in Indian Penal Code. Definitely
what may be the impact of spoken words,
can only be inferred from the peculiar facts
and circumstances of a case. In the case in
hand, the remark was inappropriate or even
rude but circumstances prima facie do not
establish that it was intended to provoke the
person to cause breach of peace. The courts
concerned failed to apply law in correct
perspective.

20. In my opinion, prima facie no
offence under section 504 IPC is made out
370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and therefore this is a case where this court,
in exercise of powers under Article 227 of
the Constitution, should interfere to prevent
and nip in the bud misuse of law, hence the
impugned orders are set-aside and this
petition is allowed.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 370
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 8808 of 2023

Raghvendra Kumar Yadav ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ravindra Prakash Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Jagdev Singh

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 196, 197 & 482 - St.
Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper
Use) Act, 2005 - Sections 3, 6, 7, 8 & 9: -
Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. - for quashing of the
entire criminal proceedings - Police Security
duty - Recovery Memo - offence of misusing
the Ashok Stambh, the national emblem by
affixing it to the number plate of his motorcycle
- custody of motorcycle by the police - FIR -
investigation - St.ment recorded - charge-sheet
- order of cognizance - court finds that, the
prosecution lacked valid sanction from the
Central Government as required by Section 8 of
the Act - Although the charge-sheet correctly
cited the 2005 Act, the sanction order was
issued by the St. Government under Section 196
of the CrPC, which applies only to IPC offences
and not to those under the 2005 Act - The
Magistrate's
cognizance
order
made
no
reference to the sanction, suggesting it was
never presented - held - the proceedings and
cognizance were invalid, the charge-sheet itself
remains intact, allowing the St. to reinitiate
prosecution after obtaining proper sanction from
the Central Government - The Court quashed
the cognizance order and proceedings against
applicant under Section 3/7 of the St. Emblem
of India Act, 2005 - consequently, application
succeeds and is allowed.
(Para - 49, 50, 51, 52, 53)

Application Allowed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -

1. Sable Waghire and Co. & ors.Vs U.O.I. & ors.,
(1975) 1 SCC 763,

2. Criminal Petition No. 4270 of 2016, G.B. Athri
Vs Smt. Mangla Gauri, decided on 15.02.2017,

3. Dr. R.K. Balasubramaniam Vs Inspector of
Police, 2013 (3) MWN (Cr.) 96,

4. Abdul Faqir Vs St. of Rajasthan & anr., S.B.
Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 2755 of 2015, decided
on 14.09.2017,

5. G.B. Athri Vs Smt. Mangala Gowri, Criminal
Misc. Petition No. 4270 of 2016, decided on
15.02.2017,

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

This application under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for
short, 'the Code') seeks to quash the
proceedings of Case No. 3558 of 2018,
State v. Raghvendra Kumar Yadav (arising
out of Case Crime No. 2264 of 2016),
under Section 3/7 of the State Emblem of
India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act,
2005, Police Station - Khalilabad, District
- Sant Kabir Nagar pending on the file of
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir
Nagar.

2. Heard Mr. Ravindra Prakash
Srivastava,
learned
Counsel
for
the
applicant, Mr. Jagdev Singh, learned