(2026:JHHC:17285) 1 Cr.M.P. No.4348 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 4348 of 2022 Basant Kumar Sahu @ Basant Saw @ Basant Sao @ Basant Sahu, aged about 57 years, son of Panna Lal Saw, resident of Village-Khunti (Dubrajpur), P.O. & P.S.-Chowka, Dist.-Seraikella-Kharsawan .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Prawesh Kumar Saw, son of Anant Saw, Block Development Officer, Chandil, P.O. & P.S.-Chandil, Dist.-Seraikella-Kharsawan, resident of Shivpuri, P.O. & P.S.-Latehar, Dist.-Latehar …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate : Mr. Sanket Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : None ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the order dated 19.08.2021 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chandil-Seraikella in connection with Chowka P.S. Case No. 24 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. No. 690 of 2021, whereby and where under, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chandil-Seraikella has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 188 and 505(1) (b) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 51 and 54 of Disaster (2026:JHHC:17285) 2 Cr.M.P. No.4348 of 2022 Management Act, 2005 and under Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897. 3. Though notice has been validly served upon the opposite party no.2 yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in- spite of repeated calls. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner made a tape recording of the voice of the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella while he was talking in Chandil quarantine area without his permission and made the said tape recording of the voice of the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella viral. 5. On the basis of the written report submitted by the Block Development Officer, Chandil police registered Chowka P.S. Case No. 24 of 2020 and took up investigation of the case. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the petitioner finding the allegation to be true and contending therein that during the corona pandemic, without the permission of the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella making the tape recording of the voice of the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella and making the same viral and thereby causing disruption in the government work. After completion of investigation, police submitted chargesheet. On the basis of the charge sheet submitted by the police, learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chandil- Seraikella has taken cognizance of the said offences. (2026:JHHC:17285) 3 Cr.M.P. No.4348 of 2022 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case is next fixed to 26.06.2026 for consideration of framing of charge and charge has not yet been framed. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Rajeev Singh Dugal @ Rajeev Duggal vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in 2024 Supreme (Jhk) 353 that in that case, this Court considered Section 195 of Code of Criminal Procedure which envisages filing of a complaint in writing by the public servant concerned for having committed the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation of the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code hence, even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner are considered to be true, still, the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner of that case. 8. So far as the offence punishable under Section 505 (1) (b) of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the same relates to public mischief and in order to constitute the said offence, accused must publish or circulates any statement, rumour or report with intention to cause or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public (2026:JHHC:17285) 4 Cr.M.P. No.4348 of 2022 tranquillity. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of publishing or circulating any statement, rumour or report with intent to cause or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquillity hence, even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner are considered to be true, still, the offence punishable under Section 505 (1) (b) of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 9. So far as the offence punishable under Section 51 and 54 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of Section 60 of the said Act, the Court ought not have taken cognizance of the offences punishable under the penal provisions of the said Act except on a complaint made by the authority/officer concerned, who has been authorized under Section 60 of the said Act. Hence, the cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 51 and 54 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 is not sustainable in law. 10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation against the petitioner of indulging in any act constituting any of the offences for which penalty has been provided for in Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, as there is no allegation against the (2026:JHHC:17285) 5 Cr.M.P. No.4348 of 2022 petitioner of disobeying any regulation or any order made under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 nor is there any allegation of any violation having been committed against a Health Care Service Personnel or damage or loss to any property having been caused. Hence, it is submitted that the offence punishable under Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 is also not made out against the petitioner. It is, therefore, submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 11. Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true, then each of the offence in respect of which cognizance has been taken is made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 12. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that so far as the offence punishable under Section 51 and 54 of Disaster Management Act, 2005 is concerned, there is no allegation against the petitioner of obstructing any officer or employee of the Central Government or the State Government or the National Executive Committee or the State Executive Committee or the District Authority in discharge of the function under the said Act nor there is any allegation (2026:JHHC:17285) 6 Cr.M.P. No.4348 of 2022 against the petitioner of refusing to comply with any direction given by or on behalf of the Government or National Executive Committee or State Executive Committee or the District Authority under the Disaster Management Act, 2005. Further, there is no allegation of circulating a false alarm or warning as to disaster or its severity or magnitude, leading to panic. Further, Section 60 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 reads as under:- “60. Cognizance of offences.—No court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except on a complaint made by— (a) the National Authority, the State Authority, the Central Government, the State Government, the District Authority or any other authority or officer authorised in this behalf by that Authority or Government, as the case may be; or (b) any person who has given notice of not less than thirty days in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence and his intention to make a complaint to the National Authority, the State Authority, the Central Government, the State Government, the District Authority or any other authority or officer authorised as aforesaid.” (Emphasis supplied) envisages that cognizance of the offences punishable under Disaster Management Act, 2005 can only be taken on a complaint made by the authority/person mentioned therein but in this case, as no complaint has been filed directly with the court concerned rather an F.I.R. has been lodged; so on both these reasons, the cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 51 and 54 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 taken by the court vide the impugned order, firstly because the same has been taken on the basis of police report and secondly, as there is lack of the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence, is bad in law. (2026:JHHC:17285) 7 Cr.M.P. No.4348 of 2022 13. So far as the offence punishable under Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 is concerned, Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 reads as under:- “3. Penalty.—[(1)]Any person disobeying any regulation or order made under this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). [(2) Whoever,— (i) commits or abets the commission of an act of violence against a healthcare service personnel; or (ii) abets or causes damage or loss to any property, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months, but which may extend to five years, and with fine, which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees, but which may extend to two lakh rupees. (3) Whoever, while committing an act of violence against a healthcare service personnel, causes grievous hurt as defined in Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) to such person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to seven years and with fine, which shall not be less than one lakh rupees, but which may extend to five lakh rupees.]” The plain reding of the same shows that there are three different kinds of offences for which penalty has been provided for in the said Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, first one under Section 3 (1) of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 relates to a person disobeying any regulation or order made under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897. There is obviously no allegation against the petitioner of disobeying any regulation or order made under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897. Section 3 (2) (i) & (ii) of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 is regarding the offence of commission of act of violence against the Health Care Service Personnel or abetting or causing damage or loss to any property. There is no allegation against the petitioner of causing any loss to any property nor is there any allegation of violence against the Health Care Service (2026:JHHC:17285) 8 Cr.M.P. No.4348 of 2022 Personnel. Section 3(3) of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 relates to an aggravated form of offence punishable under Section 3(2) (i) of the said Act; that is when by violence against a Health Care Service Personnel, grievous hurt is also caused to such victim and as none of the said allegation has been made against the petitioner in the F.I.R., charge sheet or anywhere in the case diary, hence, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner in the FIR, the materials collected during the investigation and charge-sheet are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 is not made out against the petitioner. 14. So far as the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, in the F.I.R. there is no reference to any promulgation of any order which has been violated by the petitioner. Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure debars any court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188, of the Indian Penal Code both inclusive; or any abetment or attempt to commit such offence or any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant; to whom he is administratively subordinate. 15. It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of C. Muniappan & Others vs. (2026:JHHC:17285) 9 Cr.M.P. No.4348 of 2022 State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2010) 9 SCC 567, paragraph-33 of which reads as under:- “33. Thus, in view of the above, the law can be summarised to the effect that there must be a complaint by the public servant whose lawful order has not been complied with. The complaint must be in writing. The provisions of Section 195 CrPC are mandatory. Noncompliance with it would vitiate the prosecution and all other consequential orders. The court cannot assume the cognizance of the case without such complaint. In the absence of such a complaint, the trial and conviction will be void ab initio being without jurisdiction.” (Emphasis supplied) that the provisions of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are mandatory and the non-compliance of which will vitiate the prosecution. 16. Now coming to the facts of the case, in this case as the undisputed fact remains that there has not been any complaint filed by any public servant in terms of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C.. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chandil-Seraikella has committed a grave illegality in taking the cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code more so when there is no allegation regarding the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. 17. So far as the offence punishable under Section 505 (1) (b) of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredient to constitute the said offence is that the accused must publish or circulates any statement, rumour or report with intention to cause or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any (2026:JHHC:17285) 10 Cr.M.P. No.4348 of 2022 section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquillity. 18. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner that the tape recorded voice of the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella which the petitioner allegedly made viral was caused with intent to cause fear or alarm to the public nor is there any allegation that the same was caused to cause fear or alarm to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquillity. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true, still, the offence punishable under Section 505 (1) (b) of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 19. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned order dated 19.08.2021 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chandil-Seraikella in connection with Chowka P.S. Case No. 24 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. No. 690 of 2021 by which the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chandil- Seraikella has taken cognizance of the said offences as already discussed above is not sustainable in law. 20. Accordingly, impugned order dated 19.08.2021 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chandil-Seraikella in (2026:JHHC:17285) 11 Cr.M.P. No.4348 of 2022 connection with Chowka P.S. Case No. 24 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. No. 690 of 2021 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 21. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 15th June, 2026 AFR/Gunjan/- Uploaded on 17/06/2026