IN THE HiGi-i COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR Criminai Misc. Petition No. 203 of 2006 Chandramani Pradhan and others Versus Brajsen Petitioners Resgondent Post for oxder on I? Fcbruary, 2008 ‘ r IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR Criminal Misc. Petition No. 203 of 2006 Petitioners 1. Chandramani Pradhan, son of ' Mahadeo Pmdhan, agsd about 71 yeam (Retired Teacher) Saraipali, infront of Civil Court, Main Road, Saraipali, District-Mahasamund (C.G.) 2. Laxmi Nara‘yan Sahu, son of Rameshwar Sahu, aged about’70 years (Reu'red Teacher), rcsident of Salhetarai, Tehsil Basna, District Mahsamund (C.G.) Dola Mani Sahu, son of Bihari Lal Sahu, aged about 58 years (Teacher), resident of Village— Patharla, Police Station-Basna, District Mahsamund (C.G.) 3. Kaushik Pmdhan, son of Bihan‘ Lal Pradhan, aged about 55 years (Clerk), resident of Village Patharla Police Station-Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) Chhotey Lal son of Rameshwar Pradhan, aged about 56 years (Teacher) resident of Village— Patharla, Police Station-Basna,‘ District Mahasamund (C.G.) 6. Jejeram, son of Kandaxva Sahu aged about 57 years, (Teacher) resident of Village—Jhagrendih, Police Station-Basna, Disu‘ict Mahasamund (C.G.) 7. Narsingo son of Gorango Pradhan aged about 65 years, reSident of Village—Tala, Police Station— Basna, District-Mahasamund (C.G.) Mahadeo son of Resham Lal, aged about 55 years, resident of 8. Barnaidadar, Police Station— Basna, District—Mahasam'und (C.G.) Bishwambhar, son of Gamango, aged about 47 years, (Patwan'), resident of Boirdih, Police Station Basna, District—Mahasamund (C.G,) Udekar son of Madhu, aged about 53 years, resident of Viliage- Bhikhapali, Police Station—Basna, Disinict-Mahasamund (C.G.) Chhabilal‘ son of Bhola Pradhan, aged about 56 years, resident of Bhik‘napali, Police Station‘Basna, 11. u; 10. ~ 12. District-Mahasamund (C.G.} Shairugan son of Uderam, aged about 56 years, resident of Jagdishpur, Police Station—Basna, Disirict—Mahasamund (C. G.) Ranjit Pradhan son of Nam Pradhall ageti about 49 yeaxs (Teacher) resident of Viliage- Jagdishpur, Police Station Basna, Dishict~Mahasamund (C.G.) Chamru Vishal son of Sahdeo, aged about 4O years (Teacher), resident of ViHag‘e-Naisingpur, Police Station-Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) Shambhukar son of Sudarshan, aged about 52 years, resident of Village-Jhagrendih, Ponce Station~Basna, District Mahasamund (C,G.) Bajal Pradhan son of Chaitan Pradhan aged about 58 years, resident of Village-Jabalpur, Police Station-Basra, Dish‘ict- Mahasamund (C.G.) Haricharan Pradhan son of Muns‘him‘m Pradhan, resident of Village—Charbhatha,' P. S. Pithora, District—Mahasamund (C.G.) Brij Mohau Pradhan son of ' Damodar Pradhan, aged about 64 yeals, resident of Village- Dumarpali, Police Station—Kasdol, Tehsil—Bilaigarh, District—Raipur (C.G.) Versus Brajsen son of Mayadhar Sahu, aged about 53 years, Caste Kolta, resident of Village- Bhikhapaii, Police Station— Basna, District—Mahasamund (co) 13. 14. 15. w; 16. 17. 18. Respondent (UNDER SECTION 482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE) (SB: Hon’ble Shri Justice T.P. Sharma, Judge) v Present: Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shn' Manoj Paranjape, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER (Passed on l 9 February, 2008) 1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Code’) for quashing order dated 17.11.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund in Criminal Revision N0. 44j2006, afiirming the order dated 4.7.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund in Criminal Case No. 805] 2005. <a‘? 2. Brief facts leading to iih'ng of this petition are, the petitioners b%long to Kolta Samaj. In the year 1995, Respondent’s sister‘ i in-law Smt. Bhumilata lodged a report under Section 354, 376/51 1 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent and then Kolta Samaj convened a meeting and decided to boycott him from society for a period of 5 years, but afterwaids it' reconsidered its decision. Meeting of Kolta Samaj was again convened on 14.6.2001 in Village Jhagrendih. In the said meeting, the petitioners demanded Rs.13,000[- from complainant, who under threat paid Rs. 35()O/- immediately, but no receipt was passed. Again the petitioners demanded Rs. 9500 / a on 28. 10. 2003 for takin g back to complainant/respondent in society. Thereafter, written complaint was lodged to Police Station—Basna alleging extension and demarcation, but no action was taken by the Police. After in action ofthe police, respondent tiled complaint against the petitioners. After examination of complainant and their Witnesses under Section 200 and 202 of the Code, cognizance was taken against all the petitioners. Criminal case No. 805/ 2005 was mgistered. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the learned Magistrate had framed the charges under Secu'ons 384 and 500/34 of the IPC on 4.7.2006. n; Criminal revision was filed against the order framing charge. Learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund affirmed the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, r Mahasam mid. ‘3‘? 4. The ~order impugned is challenged on the ground that 'bgycotting or excommunicating the person h‘om the society of any person is not defamation and depositing the money by the person to member ofthe society do not constitute the offence of extraction. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and documents, ‘ copy of the statements of the witnesses tiled on behalf of the petitioners perused. It is submitted on behalf of the pennoners that they have not boycotted the respondent and even the allegation of excommunicating or boycotting do not constitute the oilbnce of defamation. Reliance on Mohammad Ahsan Haji Mohd. Suleman Vs. Haji Alum Majid Tnekeda: [1997(1) M.p.L.J. s71} has piaced on behalf of the petitioners. In MOhammad Ahsan Haji Mohd. Suleman’s (supra), the HOn’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that simplicitor excommunication do not constitute the offence of defamation without any further imputation. It §\ has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that allegation relating to deposit of money shows that he was not under threat and. the respondent had willfully deposited the money, therefore; no oEence under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code has said to have been committed by the petitioners. Reliance on T. Vengama Naidu Vs. T. Dora Swamy Naidu 85 01's. [2007 (3) SBR {20] has placed on behalf of the respondent. In T. Vengama Naidu’s (supra), it has been held by V the Apex Court that if the matters falls under civil dispute as well as criminal offences, then prosecution is competent. ‘\ g n; 9. It is also Submitted on behalf of the respondent that at the stage of issuance of process only prima facie case for proceeding is required 10. In the matter of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others (AIR 1992 SC 604), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:— .1. Where the allegan'ons made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where'the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police o$cers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the d ’ same do not disclose the commission of any oifence an make out a case against the accused.” He aiso placed reliance, the decisions of Supreme Court in the mattex‘s of Union of India Vs. Prakash P. Himluja and another (AIR 2003 SC 261ml, Jagdish Ram Vs. state of Rajasthan and another (2004 AIR SCW 1342)? and Shiva Nath Prasad Vs. State of West Bengal 85 01's. (2006 AIR SCW 828)3 and submitted that the charges have been &amed by the Court on the material available on record and by the order framing charge, the Court is not committed any illegality. 12. At the stage on fmmingncharge, the Court is required to consider the material available on record. No meticulous a scrutiny ‘“ is required. M; , 11. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund after taking into consideration the material available on record has passed the order impugned of framing charge do not suEer from any infirmity or illegality. 12. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and dismissed.