Manishankar Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1 / 5

¶2

AMITA DUBEY

¶3

Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2024.11.12 17:38:20 +0530

¶4

2024:CGHC:43045-DB

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

CRMP No. 807 of 2021

¶8

1 - Manishankar Pandey S/o Late Shri R.K. Pandey Aged About 51 Years R/o Maharana Pratap Nagar , Tiphra, Bilaspur Police Station Sirgitti, Bilaspur , District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ambikapur , District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶12

2 - Yagyavlkya Mishra S/o Prakash Chandra Mishra Aged About 44 Years Banaras Road, Gandhinagar, Ambikapur , District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. Akhat Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. H. A. P. S. Bhatia, Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶18

06.11.2024

¶19

Heard Mr. Akhat Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing

¶20

2 / 5

¶21

for respondent No. 1/State as well as Mr. H. A. P.S. Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.

¶22

The present CRMP has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:

¶23

“10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from Police Station- Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.).

¶24

10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the FIR bearing No. -317/2018 dated 28.06.2018, which is registered at Police Station Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Section 120-B, 153-B, 468, 469, 471, 500, 501, 503 and 505 of Indian Penal Code of Indian Penal against the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

¶25

10.3 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

¶26

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is a social worker, is concerned with various welfare activities and development schemes in the area. He was appointed as Bureau Chief of Monthly Magazine (Patrika) namely Jagat Vision on 18-05- 2018 by the Head Editor Vijaya Pathak of the said Magazine. He was appointed as Bureau Chief only for reporting the news of Monthly Magazine (Patrika) of Jagat Vision, and not for publishing the Monthly Magazine (Patrika) of Jagat Vision.

¶27

Complainant namely Yagyavlkya Mishra (henceforth ‘the Complainant’) is habitual offender and number of criminal cases were registered against him in many Police Stations. The Superintendent of Police, District Surguja has also taken action against the Complainant under Section 5(2) of the State Security Act 1980 to expel him from the District Surguja as well as adjoining 58 districts

¶28

3 / 5

¶29

vide Annexure P-3. On 01 May 2018, the Monthly Magazine (Patrika) of Jagat Vision was published by the publisher with regard to criminal case of the complainant with proof along with some other news regarding the government and other society. According to the petitioner, no false or fake news was Published in Jagat Vision Magazine on 01 May 2018.

¶30

On 28-06-2018, the Complainant made a written complaint against three persons namely, Abhya Singh, Head Editor, Vijaya Pathak and the present petitioner alleging that they have published fake news in the Jagat Vision Magazine in the month of May 2018 against him. On the basis of such complaint, the police of Police Station-Ambikapur registered the FIR on 28-062018 against the petitioner as well as other co-accused persons bearing crime No. 317/2018 for offences punishable under section 120-B, 153-B, 468, 469, 471, 500,501, 503 and 505 Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a journalist and he has reported about the criminal antecedents of the complainant in his local newspaper. According to the petitioner, no offence is made out against him because all the contents / chapter of the magazine, was published by the publisher after verifying the facts as well as the criminal records of complainant. In fact, the petitioner was legally appointed as Bureau Chief of Monthly Magazine (Patrika) of Jagat Vision on 18-05-2018 by the Head Editor Vijaya Pathak. He was appointed only for reporting the news of Monthly Magazine (Patrika) of Jagat Vision, not for publishing the Monthly Magazine (Patrika) of Jagat Vision. The magazine was published on 01.05.2018 before the appointment of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner has no role in the criminal case registered as crime no. 317/2018. He further submits that the complainant had set on fire the car of the erstwhile

¶31

4 / 5

¶32

home minister Shri Ram Vichar Netam and he is also involved in the various criminal activities, which is evident from Annexure P/5. The head publisher had published various such illegal activities against some persons who were involved in illegal activities in the state after verifying the criminal case of the complainant as well as the other contents. Therefore no case is made out against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner, initially, had no knowledge regarding the FIR registered at police station Ambikapur against him and others, and when he came to know about the same, he immediately filed the present petition under section 482 of CRPC for quashing the FIR. It is submitted that the action of the respondent No.1 and 2 is illegal, erroneous and contrary to provisions of the law, therefore the FIR dated 28-06-2018 being illegal, erroneous and contrary to law is liable to be set-aside. Hence this petition.

¶33

On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the

¶34

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶35

It transpires from the order sheets that no interim relief order has been passed in the present matter.

¶36

On a pointed query being made to the learned State counsel regarding the status of the investigation of the present case for which the FIR was lodged under Sections 120-B, 153-B, 468, 469, 471, 500, 501, 503 and 505 of Indian Penal Code, it is stated that a closure report has been prepared by the Investigating OfÏcer on 11.06.2024, however, the same has not been forwarded to the Court of competent jurisdiction.

¶37

5 / 5

¶38

In view of the above, the Investigating OfÏcer is directed to submit the final report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C before the competent Court, if any, within a period of three weeks from today. The concerned Superintendent of Police shall ensure the compliance of the order passed by this Court.

¶39

With the aforesaid observations & direction, the Cr.M.P. stands disposed of.

¶40

Sd/Sd/-

¶41

(Bibhu Datta Guru ) (Ramesh Sinha)

¶42

Judge Chief Justice

¶43

amita

Manishankar Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manishankar Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilraj Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pradeep Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Paddam Raju Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Radheshyam Banjare @ Radhe Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sunita Devi Mehar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Firoz Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh