M/s Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd Through Its Managing Director, Ms. Rudrani Sarkar vs State Of Bihar and Anr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10548 of 2018
CNR No. BRHC010946512018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2259 Year-2017 Thana- VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE
District- Vaishali
======================================================
M/s Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd a company registered under the provisions of
th
the Indian Company Act having its office at 4 Floor, 118, KS House,
Shahpur Jat, New Delhi-110049 through Its Managing Director, Ms. Rudrani
Sarkar Daughter of Sri Aveek Sarkar, C/o 4th Floor, 118, KS House, Shahpur
Jat P.S.- Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110049.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State Of Bihar
2. Amit Kumar, S/o Sh Raghuvansh Narayan Singh, Gangabrij Colony, Quarter
No. C/51, Hajipur, P.S.- Industrial Area, District- Vaishali.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashish Giri, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Adv.
Mr. Pranav Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Ramchandra Sahani, APP
For Opposite Party No. 2: None appears
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 03-11-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The present application has been filed under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking
quashing of the orders dated 07-10-2017 and 09-10-2017 passed
by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Hajipur,
Vaishali in Complaint Case No. 2259(C) of 2017, whereby
cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offences

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10548 of 2018 dt.03-11-2026
2/27
punishable under Sections 295-A, 500, 501 and 502 of the
Indian Penal Code and summons have been directed to be
issued.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
3. The petitioner is a company incorporated under
the provisions of the Companies Act and is engaged in the
business of publishing books. The present prosecution arises out
of a complaint filed by opposite party no. 2, namely, Amit
Kumar, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hajipur,
Vaishali, registered as Complaint Case No. 2259(C) of 2017 on
06-9-2017.
4. The complainant has described himself as a
follower of Swami Ramdev. It is alleged in the complaint that
on 01-9-2017, in the evening, while he was in the market, he
noticed a book bearing the photograph of Swami Ramdev, titled
“Godman to Tycoon: The Untold Story of Swami Ramdev” (for
brevity hereinafter referred to as ‘book’). Since the complainant
was a follower of Swami Ramdev, he purchased the book and
started reading it after returning home.
5. According to the complainant, upon reading a
few pages of the book, he realised that certain aspects relating to
Swami Ramdev had been presented in such a manner as to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10548 of 2018 dt.03-11-2026
3/27
defame him. It has been alleged that the book indirectly made
Swami Ramdev responsible for the demise of Guru
Shankaranand, Swami Yogananda and Rajiv Dixit. It has been
further alleged that Swami Ramdev had been depicted as an
illiterate son of a poor farmer and that certain statements
concerning his wearing of gerua vastra had hurt the sentiments
of the Hindu religion. The complainant also alleged that the
book was written with an intention to defame Swami Ramdev
and to spread religious frenzy among his followers. It has also
been alleged that the contents of the book hurt the sentiments of
the numerous followers of Swami Ramdev.
6. Pursuant thereto, the statement of the
complainant was recorded on 12-9-2017. Thereafter, two other
witnesses, namely, Prakash Kumar Mishra and Abhishek
Kumar, were examined on 15-9-2017 and 18-9-2017
respectively. By order dated 07-10-2017, the learned Magistrate
took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 495-
A, 500, 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, by
order dated 09-10-2017, the provision of Section 495-A was
substituted by Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code, treating
the earlier reference to Section 495-A as a typographical error.
The proceedings were accordingly directed to continue for the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10548 of 2018 dt.03-11-2026
4/27
offences under Sections 295-A, 500, 501 and 502 of the Indian
Penal Code.
7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders and the
consequential criminal proceedings, the petitioner has
approached this Court, invoking its inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner
8. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Ashish Giri
appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the
prosecution, even if the allegations made in the complaint are
accepted in their entirety, is not maintainable in law. It is
contended that the complainant has instituted the complaint
alleging defamation of a person other than himself, namely,
Swami Ramdev, whereas no imputation has been made against
the complainant personally.
9. Learned Senior Counsel submits that Section
199(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically provides
that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable
under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code except upon a
complaint made by a “person aggrieved” by the offence.
Sections 500, 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code fall within
Chapter XXI. The statutory requirement is mandatory, and a

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10548 of 2018 dt.03-11-2026
5/27
person who merely claims to be a follower or disciple of the
person allegedly defamed cannot institute a criminal prosecution
in his individual capacity for the alleged defamation of that
person. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned Senior
Counsel places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of G. Narasimhan, G. Kasturi and
K. Gopalan vs. T.V. Chokkappa, reported in (1972) 2 SCC 680 .
It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the
requirement of a complaint by a “person aggrieved” is
mandatory and that on a complaint by a person who does not
fall within the expression “person aggrieved” cannot sustain a
prosecution for defamation.
10. Learned Senior Counsel further relies upon
Dhirendra Nath Sen and Another v. Rajat Kanti Bhadra, (AIR
1970 Cal 216) , and Ganesh Anand Chela v. Swami
Divyanand, (1980) 17 DLT 492 to submit that a disciple or
follower cannot claim to be a “person aggrieved” merely
because an alleged defamatory statement has been made against
his spiritual or religious head. The injury to the feelings of a
disciple on account of alleged defamation of his Guru does not
confer him upon the legal competence to prosecute the alleged
offender for defamation.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10548 of 2018 dt.03-11-2026
6/27
11. It is further submitted that the complainant has
not alleged that the book contains any imputation against a
definite and identifiable class of persons. The allegations in the
complaint are directed essentially against Swami Ramdev. A
general assertion that the book has hurt the sentiments of his
followers or members of the Hindu community cannot bring the
complainant within the scope of Explanation-2 to Section 499 of
the Indian Penal Code.
12. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that the
cognizance taken for the offence under Section 295-A of the
Indian Penal Code is contrary to the mandatory requirement of
Section 196(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under the
said provision, no Court can take cognizance of an offence
punishable under Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code
except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or
State Government. It is submitted that no such sanction was
obtained before the cognizance was taken in the present case.
13. Learned Senior Counsel has also raised the
question of non-compliance with Section 202 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, submitting that the petitioner is situated
outside the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate and
that the mandatory inquiry contemplated under the said

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10548 of 2018 dt.03-11-2026
7/27
provision was not undertaken before issuance of process.
Reliance was placed upon Udai Shankar Awasthi v. State of
U.P., (2013) 2 SCC 435 , and Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant
Madhukar Nimbalkar, (2017) 3 SCC 528.
14. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the
petitioner-company, being a juristic entity, cannot be attributed
the requisite mens rea for the offence of defamation in the
absence of any material showing an intention on its part to harm
the reputation of Swami Ramdev. Mere publication of the book,
without any material indicating such intention, would not be
sufficient to fasten criminal liability upon the petitioner.
Reliance was placed on Raymond Ltd. v. Rameshwar Das P.
Ltd., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 1328.
15. It is lastly submitted that the complaint is vague
and does not identify with precision the portions of the book
alleged to be defamatory or the religious beliefs alleged to have
been insulted. The continuation of the criminal proceedings
against the petitioner in the circumstances, would amount to an
abuse of the process of the Court.
Submissions on Behalf of the State
16. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing on behalf of the State has been heard. The State has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10548 of 2018 dt.03-11-2026
8/27
opposed the prayer for quashing and has supported the order
passed by the learned Magistrate. No one has appeared on
behalf of opposite party no. 2 despite opportunities having been
granted.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
Upon consideration of the pleadings, the materials
available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of
the parties, the following issues arise for determination:
(i). Whether the present case is fit for exercise of the
inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure?
(ii). Whether a complainant who claims to be a follower
and disciple of Swami Ramdev can be treated as a “person
aggrieved” within the meaning of Section 199(1) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure so as to maintain a complaint for the
alleged offences under Sections 500, 501 and 502 of the Indian
Penal Code, when the alleged imputations are directed against
Swami Ramdev and not against the complainant?
(iii). Whether cognizance of the offence under Section
295-A of the Indian Penal Code could have been taken in the
absence of previous sanction, as required under Section 196(1)
(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10548 of 2018 dt.03-11-2026
9/27
allegations made in the complaint disclose the essential
ingredients of the offence under Section 295-A of the Indian
Penal Code?
(iv). Whether the mandatory procedure contemplated
under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was
complied with before issuance of process against the petitioner,
and whether the order taking cognizance reflects the requisite
application of judicial mind?
FINDINGS ON THE ISSUES:
Issue No. (i) Whether the present case is fit for exercise
of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Before examining the individual statutory provisions and
the allegations made in the complaint, it would be appropriate to
consider the scope of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The
inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is intended to give effect
to any order under the Code, to prevent abuse of the process of
any Court, and otherwise to secure the ends of justice. At the
same time, the existence of such power cannot be denied where
the allegations made in a complaint, even if accepted in their
entirety, do not constitute of an offence or where the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10548 of 2018 dt.03-11-2026
10/27
continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of
the process of the Court.
In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 ,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in paragraph-102, has illustrated
the categories of cases in which the inherent power of the High
Court may be exercised to quash criminal proceedings. The first
category relates to cases where the allegations made in the First
Information Report or complaint, even if 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.
The other categories include cases where the allegations and the
accompanying material do not disclose the commission of an
offence, or where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide or is maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive.
The principles laid down in Bhajan Lal case (supra)
make it clear that the High Court is not required to permit a
criminal prosecution to continue merely because an order of
cognizance has been passed. Where the complaint itself
discloses a statutory bar to the prosecution or where the
allegations do not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence
alleged, the High Court is justified in exercising its inherent

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10548 of 2018 dt.03-11-2026
11/27
jurisdiction.
In the present case, the challenge raised by the petitioner
is not founded merely upon a disputed question of fact or upon a
defence which would require appreciation of evidence at trial.
The petitioner has raised issues relating to the statutory
competence of the complainant to institute proceedings for
defamation and the absence of previous sanction for taking
cognizance under Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code.
These are questions which go to the very maintainability of the
prosecution and can be examined on the basis of the complaint
and the orders impugned.
This Court is, therefore, of the view that the present case
warrants examination under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner has raised substantial
questions relating to statutory bars to cognizance and the
absence of essential ingredients of the offences alleged.
Issue No. (ii) Whether a complainant who claims to be
a follower and disciple of Swami Ramdev can be treated as a
“person aggrieved” within the meaning of Section 199(1) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure so as to maintain a
complaint for the alleged offences under Sections 500, 501
and 502 of the Indian Penal Code, when the alleged

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10548 of 2018 dt.03-11-2026
12/27
imputations are directed against Swami Ramdev and not
against the complainant?
The principal objection raised on behalf of the petitioner
is that the complainant is not the person who is alleged to have
been defamed. The complaint itself proceeds on the footing that
the book has defamed Swami Ramdev and that the complainant,
being his follower, has been hurt by the contents of the book.
Section 199(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
provides as follows:
“(1) No Court shall take cognizance of an
offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), except upon a
complaint made by some person aggrieved by the
offence :Provided that where such person is under
the age of eighteen years, or is an idiot or a lunatic
or is from sickness or infirmity unable to make a
complaint, or is a woman who, according to the
local customs and manners, ought not to be
compelled to appear in public, some other person
may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint
on his or her behalf.”
A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear
that the restriction imposed therein is mandatory. The expression
“person aggrieved” is not a mere formality. It is a condition
prescribed by the legislature for taking cognizance of offences
punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code, which
includes Sections 499 to 502.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10548 of 2018 dt.03-11-2026
13/27
The object of the provision is to ensure that the
prosecution for defamation is initiated by the person whose
reputation is alleged to have been harmed, subject to the
exceptions expressly provided by the statute. The provision does
not permit any person, merely on account of his interest in the
subject matter or his personal feelings, to institute a criminal
prosecution for the alleged defamation of another person.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of G.
Narasimhan, G. Kasturi and K. Gopalan vs. T.V. Chokkappa
(supra), while considering the scope of the corresponding
provision under the old Act, has held that the provision is
mandatory and that cognizance of an offence of defamation can
be taken only upon a complaint made by a “person aggrieved”
by the offence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further clarified that
where a well-defined class is defamed, a particular member of
that class may maintain a complaint even if the defamatory
imputations do not mention him by name. However, the class
must be definite and identifiable and the imputation must be
relatable to that class. A general or indeterminate collection of
persons cannot be treated as a definite class for this purpose.
The aforesaid principle has direct reliance to the present
case. The complaint does not allege that the book contains any

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10548 of 2018 dt.03-11-2026
14/27
imputation concerning the complainant, Amit Kumar. The
allegations are directed towards the portrayal of Swami Ramdev
in the book. The complainant has described himself as a
follower of Swami Ramdev and has stated that the contents of
the book have hurt his feelings and the sentiments of other
followers. The question, therefore, is whether the mere fact that
the complainant is a follower or disciple of the person allegedly
defamed is sufficient to make him a “person aggrieved” within
the meaning of Section 199(1) of the Code.
In Dhirendra Nath Sen v. Rajat Kanti Bhadra, AIR
1970 Cal 216 , the Calcutta High Court considered a similar
question. The complainant in that case had described himself as
a member of an Ashram and had instituted a complaint alleging
defamation of the spiritual head of the Ashram . It was
contended that since the complainant was a disciple of the
spiritual head, the alleged lowering of the reputation of the
spiritual head also lowered the reputation of the complainant.
The High Court rejected the said contention and held that the
mere fact that the feelings of the complainant had been injured
in consequences of a defamatory statement made against his
religious head did not afford him a ground in law to prosecute
the accused for defamation. It was held that where the alleged

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10548 of 2018 dt.03-11-2026
15/27
defamation was of the spiritual head of a community, an
individual member of that community did not become a “person
aggrieved” merely on the ground of his association with the
spiritual head.
The aforesaid principle was considered and applied by the
Delhi High Court in Ganesh Anand Chela v. Swami
Divyanand, (1980) 17 DLT 492. In that case also, the
complainant was a disciple of a spiritual head and alleged that
the imputations against his Guru had also brought the Guru’s
disciples into contempt and ridicule. The Court held that the
complainant had not established that the imputations were
directed against him personally or that he was the person aimed
at. The fact that he shared grievance with other disciples could
not make him a “person aggrieved” within the meaning of
Section 199(1) of the Code.
The Court in the case of Ganesh Anand Chela (supra)
specifically observed that the grievance of a disciple arising
from an alleged defamation of his Guru , even if shared by other
disciples, cannot by itself confer upon such disciples the legal
status of a “person aggrieved”. The decision is particularly
relevant to the facts of the present case, where the complainant
has instituted the prosecution on the ground that he is a follower

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10548 of 2018 dt.03-11-2026
16/27
of Swami Ramdev and that the book has allegedly defamed his
spiritual leader.
The Bombay High Court in Maulik Kotak v. State of
Maharashtra, Criminal Writ Petition No. 64 of 2003 and
connected matters, considered complaints instituted by persons
claiming to be associated with the Swadhyaya Pariwar on
account of alleged defamatory publications concerning its
spiritual heads. The Court, after considering the law laid down
in G. Narasimhan case (supra) and other decisions, held that
persons professing membership of a spiritual or religious
movement could not maintain complaints for alleged
defamation of its leaders merely on the basis of their association
with the movement. The Court also emphasized that the group
sought to be relied upon must be determinate and identifiable.
The complaints were accordingly quashed.
The aforesaid decision is relevant because the
complainants therein, like the complainant in the present case,
sought to maintain criminal proceedings on the basis of their
association with a spiritual movement and the alleged
defamation of its leaders. The Court held that such association,
without a legally recognized basis to claim that the imputation
was directed against the complainant or a definite and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10548 of 2018 dt.03-11-2026
17/27
identifiable class of which he was a member, would not satisfy
the requirement of Section 199(1) of the Code.
In the present case, the allegations in the complaint are
specific in one aspect: The person whose reputation is alleged to
have been harmed is Swami Ramdev. The complaint states that
Swami Ramdev has been depicted in a particular manner and
that certain statements concerning his life and activities have
been made in the book. The complaint does not allege that the
complainant himself has been referred to in the book or that any
imputation has been made concerning his character, conduct or
reputation.
The complainant’s assertion that the book has hurt the
sentiments of numerous followers of Swami Ramdev does not,
by itself, alter the nature of the alleged imputation. The alleged
statements are directed against Swami Ramdev and not against
his followers as a class. The complaint does not identify any
particular, definite and ascertainable group of persons against
whom the alleged imputations have been made.
The reference to the followers of Swami Ramdev is
general in nature. The complaint does not disclose the
composition, identity or definite boundaries of such a group, nor
does it demonstrate that the alleged statements in the book were

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10548 of 2018 dt.03-11-2026
18/27
directed against that group as such. The mere fact that several
persons may share similar sentiments or may feel aggrieved by a
statement concerning a person whom they follow does not make
them a determinate class for the purpose of Explanation-2 to
Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.
It is also necessary to clarify that the provision does not
mean that an individual member can never maintain a complaint
where a well-defined class is defamed. The principle laid down
in G. Narasimhan (supra) recognizes such a right where the
class is definite and identifiable and the imputation is directed
against that class. However, the present complaint does not
satisfy that requirement. The alleged imputation is against
Swami Ramdev personally, and the complainant seeks to
prosecute the petitioner on the basis of his relationship as a
follower.
The complainant cannot, therefore, step into the position
of the person allegedly defamed merely because he is a disciple
or a follower of that person. The statutory requirement under
Section 199(1) cannot be enlarged on the basis of personal
sentiments or association. The law requires that the complainant
must be a “person aggrieved” by the alleged offence.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10548 of 2018 dt.03-11-2026
19/27
the complainant does not fall within the expression “person
aggrieved” under Section 199(1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Consequently, cognizance of the offences under
Sections 500, 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code on the
complaint instituted by opposite party no. 2 is not sustainable in
law.
Issue No. (iii) Whether cognizance of the offence under
Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code could have been
taken in the absence of previous sanction, as required under
Section 196(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and
whether the allegations made in the complaint disclose the
essential ingredients of the offence under Section 295-A of
the Indian Penal Code?
The next question which arises for consideration is
whether the learned Magistrate could have taken cognizance of
the offence under Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code
without obtaining the previous sanction contemplated under
Section 196(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Section 196(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
provides that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence
punishable under Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code
except that the previous sanction of the Central Government or

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10548 of 2018 dt.03-11-2026
20/27
the State Government. The language employed in the provision
is clear and admits of no ambiguity. The requirement of
previous sanction is a condition precedent to the Court taking
cognizance of an offence under Section 295-A of the Indian
Penal Code. It is not a procedural formality which may be
dispensed with or cured at a subsequent stage. In the absence of
a requisite previous sanction, the Court is not competent to take
cognizance of the offence.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Manoj Rai v. State of
Madhya Pradesh (1999) 1 SCC 728 , considered a case in which
prosecution had been initiated for an offence under Section 295-
A of the Indian Penal Code. The Court recorded that the State
had fairly stated that no sanction had been granted under Section
196(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for prosecuting the
appellants under Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code. In
view of the absence of sanction, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
allowed the appeal and quashed the proceedings.
In the present case, the record does not disclose that any
previous sanction of the Central Government or the State
Government was obtained before cognizance was taken for the
offence under Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code. The
order dated 07-10-2017 initially referred to Section 495-A of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10548 of 2018 dt.03-11-2026
21/27
Indian Penal Code. By the subsequent order dated 09-10-2017,
the learned Magistrate substituted the provision with Section
295-A, treating the earlier reference as a typographical error.
The correction made by the learned Magistrate on 09-10-
2017 does not cure the absence of the statutory sanction. Once
the provision of Section 295-A was invoked, the requirement of
previous sanction under Section 196(1)(a) of ‘the Code’ became
applicable. The record does not show that such sanction was
obtained before the Court proceeded to take cognizance of the
offence.
There is another aspect of the matter. Even if the
requirement of sanction is considered separately, the allegations
made in the complaint do not disclose the essential ingredients
of Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code. Section 295-A of the
Indian Penal Code penalizes deliberate and malicious acts
intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens
by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. The provision does
not make every statement which may hurt the religious feelings
of an individual or a group of persons an offence. The deliberate
and malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of a
class is an essential ingredient of the offence.
Relying on an earlier judgment delivered in Ramji Lal

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10548 of 2018 dt.03-11-2026
22/27
Modi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 620 , the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra Singh Dhoni v.
Yerraguntla Shyamsundar, (2017) 7 SCC 760 , held and
observed that Section 295-A does not penalize every act of
insult or attempt to insult the religion or religious beliefs of a
class of citizens. It penalizes only those acts which are
committed with the deliberate and malicious intention of
outraging the religious feelings of that class. The Court further
held that an insult offered unwittingly or carelessly, without the
requisite intention, would not constitute an offence under the
provision.
Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, it is
evident that the allegations in the complaint essentially relate to
the manner in which the life, background and activities of
Swami Ramdev have been narrated in the book.
However, the complaint does not disclose with the
requisite particulars which religious belief of a class of citizens
has been insulted, or how the statements complained of were
made with a deliberate and malicious intention to outrage the
religious feelings of that class. The allegation that the book has
hurt the sentiments of followers of Swami Ramdev is not, by
itself, sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 295-A of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10548 of 2018 dt.03-11-2026
23/27
the Indian Penal Code.
The distinction between an alleged defamatory statement
concerning an individual and an insult to the religion or
religious beliefs of a class of citizens is required to be kept in
view. The complaint primarily alleges that the book has harmed
the reputation of Swami Ramdev. The alleged description of his
background and the references to his life and activities may
form the subject matter of grievances on his behalf, but such
allegations do not automatically become an offence under
Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint also does
not identify any definite religious belief which has been insulted
by the statements concerning Gerua Vastra . A general assertion
that the Hindu religion has been hurt, without identifying the
religious belief allegedly insulted and without disclosing the
deliberate and malicious intention required by the provision,
cannot satisfy the ingredients of Section 295-A of the Indian
Penal Code.
In view of the absence of previous sanction under Section
196(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned
Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence under
Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code. The cognizance taken
is, therefore, completely illegal. Independently thereof, the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10548 of 2018 dt.03-11-2026
24/27
allegations in the complaint also do not disclose the essential
ingredients of the said offence.
Issue No. (iv) Whether the mandatory procedure
contemplated under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure was complied with before issuance of process
against the petitioner, and whether the order taking
cognizance reflects the requisite application of judicial
mind?
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also
challenged the proceedings on the ground that the petitioner is
situated beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the learned
Magistrate and that the mandatory inquiry contemplated under
Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not
conducted before issuance of process.
In Vijay Dhanuka v. Najima Mamtaj, (2014) 14 SCC
638 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the inquiry
contemplated under Section 202 is mandatory where the
accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the
Magistrate. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Abhijit Pawar v.
Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar, (2017) 3 SCC 528 , has also
emphasized that the requirement of an inquiry under Section
202 is not a mere formality. The Magistrate must apply his mind

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10548 of 2018 dt.03-11-2026
25/27
to the complaint, the statements recorded and the inquiry
conducted, and must be satisfied that there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused. The process of summoning
an accused is, therefore, a serious matter and cannot be
undertaken mechanically.
In the present case, the petitioner is a company having its
office at New Delhi, outside the territorial jurisdiction of the
learned Magistrate at Hajipur. The record, however, shows that
the complainant was examined on 12-09-2017 and the two other
witnesses, namely, Prakash Kumar Mishra and Abhishek
Kumar, were examined on 15-09-2017 and 18-09-2017
respectively. The order taking cognizance also makes reference
to the statements of the complainant and the inquiry witnesses
and to the book in question.
In view of the aforesaid material, it would not be
appropriate to hold that no inquiry whatsoever was conducted
under Section 202 of ‘the Code’ merely because no separate
police investigation was ordered or because a separate order
expressly referring to Section 202 is not made available. In
Vijay Dhanuka case (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
made it clear that examination of the complainant and the
witnesses by the Magistrate may itself constitute the inquiry

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10548 of 2018 dt.03-11-2026
26/27
contemplated under Section 202.
Accordingly, the challenge on the ground that there was
no inquiry at all under Section 202 of ‘the Code’ cannot be
accepted in the absolute form in which it has been advanced.
However, compliance with Section 202 does not dispense with
the obligation of the Magistrate to examine whether the
complainant is legally competent to institute the complaint and
whether the statutory requirements for taking cognizance of the
offences alleged have been fulfilled. An inquiry under Section
202 of ‘the Code’ cannot cure the absence of previous sanction
under Section 196(1)(a), nor can it confer upon the complainant
a status which he does not possess under Section 199(1) of ‘the
Code’.
CONCLUSION:
17. Having considered the facts of the case, the
allegations made in the complaint, the orders impugned and the
statutory provisions governing the offences alleged, this Court
finds that the prosecution against the petitioner suffers from
fundamental legal infirmities.
18. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered
view that allowing the prosecution to continue against the
petitioner would amount to permitting a criminal proceeding to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10548 of 2018 dt.03-11-2026
27/27
proceed despite the absence of mandatory statutory conditions
for taking cognizance. The continuation of such proceedings
would serve no useful purpose and would be an abuse of the
process of the Court.
19. Thus, to prevent abuse of the process of the
Court, and otherwise to secure the ends of justice, this
application is allowed.
20. Accordingly, the orders dated 07-10-2017 and
09-10-2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-II, Hajipur, Vaishali, in Complaint Case No. 2259(C)
of 2017, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom
concerning the petitioner, are hereby quashed.

(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
kundan/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 28.10.2026
Uploading Date 03.11.2026
Transmission Date 03.11.2026