Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.287 of 2008 ====================================================== Ram Naresh Dubey, son of late Pandit Radha Krishna Dubey, Advocate, Patna High Court, residing at Road No. 2, Plot No. 161, Shri Krishna Nagar, P.O.G.P.O., Patna, P.S.Budha Colony, Patna, District Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Shri Manoj Kumar Ojha, son of late Jai Kishore Ojha, Village Goradih, P.O. Sarkanda, P.S. Pirpainti ( Shipur-Barhat) District Bhagalpur, at present Chemical Engineer, Hindustan Copper Ltd, Ghatshila, residing at HTF-3/2, Mau Bhandar, P.O. & P.S.Ghatshila, District East Singhbhum ( Jharkhand) 2. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Naresh Dubey, Advocate ( in person) For the Opp. Party no.1 : Mr. Gaurang Chatterjee, Advocate Mr. Manu Shankar Mishra, Advocate Mr. Suresh Mishra, Advocate For the State of Bihar : Mr. Dashrath Mehta, Addl. P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 5 24-08-2012 The petitioner has approached this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), questioning the correctness, legality and propriety of the order dated 14.12.2007 passed in Complaint Case No. 2754 of 2005 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna High Court CR. REV. No.287 of 2008 (5) dt.24-08-2012 2 / 7 2 Patna, dropping the aforesaid complaint case filed on behalf of the petitioner in purported exercise of his powers under Section 258 Cr. P.C. 2. It is admitted case of the parties that the petitioner filed the aforesaid complaint case No. 2754 of 2005 in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna. In exercise of powers under Section 192(1) Cr.P.C. the complaint case was made over to the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patna for enquiry and disposal, vide order dated 5.10.2005 passed by the learned chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna. Thereafter, the complainant was examined on Solemn Affirmation by the learned Judicial Magistrate and, accordingly, cognizance under Section 500 of the Indian Penal code was taken and process in terms of Section 204 Cr. P.C. was issued by an order dated 23.3.2006 against accused opposite party no.1. 3. Since cognizance against opposite party no.1 was taken only under [STATUTE] ., therefore, the procedure prescribed under Chapter XX of the Cr. P.C. for trial of summons cases was required to be followed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. On 3.2.2007, on appearance of the opposite party no.1, substance of accusation was explained to him. He did not plead guilty. Hence, the learned Judicial Magistrate was required to Patna High Court CR. REV. No.287 of 2008 (5) dt.24-08-2012 3 / 7 3 follow the procedure prescribed under Section 254 Cr. P.C. for conclusion of trial of a summons case against the opposite party no.1 in complaint case filed by the petitioner. 4. It appears that in the meantime, opposite party no.1 filed a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate purportedly under Section 258 Cr. P.C. with a prayer that the complaint petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed and he( Opposite party no.1) be discharged from the aforesaid complaint case. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna, without considering the scheme and scope of Chapter XX of the Cr. P.C. and further without considering the mandate of Section 258 Cr. P.C. has passed the impugned order dated 14.12.2007 dropping the complaint case filed by the petitioner. 5. The petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate of this Court, has appeared in person and has assailed the validity of the impugned order on the ground that the learned Judicial Magistrate has acted illegally and has exceeded his jurisdiction/ powers, as he was not authorized in law to drop any summons case instituted upon a complaint petition. According to him, since the trial of opposite party no.1 commenced in a summons case on the basis of the complaint petition filed by the petitioner, therefore, the learned Magistrate was not legally authorized to exercise his Patna High Court CR. REV. No.287 of 2008 (5) dt.24-08-2012 4 / 7 4 powers in terms of section 258 Cr.P.C. and has committed gross illegality in dropping the complaint case filed by the petitioner. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has fairly submitted that the impugned order dated 14.12.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate cannot be sustained in the eye of law. According to him also, the learned Judicial Magistrate has exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the impugned order for dropping the complaint case filed by the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.1 has contested the matter and has fully supported the impugned order. According to the learned counsel, taking into consideration the entire circumstances, no useful purpose shall be served by reviving the complaint case filed by the petitioner. According to him, originally there was a matrimonial dispute between the daughter of the petitioner and opposite party no.1 and in that context the complaint petition has been filed by the petitioner. He next submitted that the matrimonial dispute has come to an end and now, both the parties are living separately after their divorce, therefore, in the interest of justice the proceeding should not be allowed to continue and the impugned order is fit to be affirmed. Patna High Court CR. REV. No.287 of 2008 (5) dt.24-08-2012 5 / 7 5 8. After having heard the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the petitioner had filed a complaint case and opposite party no.1 was facing trial in a summons case punishable under Section 500 I..P.C., the learned Magistrate could not have acceded to the prayer made on behalf of the opposite party no.1 and could not hav

Applicable IPC Section: 500

Statute Text:
Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Defamation against the President or the Vice-president or the Governor of a State or Administrator of a Union Territory or a Minister in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions when instituted upon a complaint made by the Public Prosecutor. Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.