Remark On Rahul Gandhi: Jharkhand High Court Quashes Case Against Union Minister Narendra Singh Tomar

The Jharkhand High Court on Tuesday quashed a criminal case against Union Minister of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Narendra Tomar for his alleged derogatory remarks against Congress Leader Rahul Gandhi.

The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi quashed the case registered against Tomar under Section 504 of IPC for his alleged remark made during a political rally in 2016 that "Prime Minister Narendra Modi is hair of moustache and the National Vice-President of Congress Sri Rahul Gandhi is hair of the tail".

The case in brief

On Md. Kalam Azad, an active member of Congress party, had instituted a complaint case against Tomar stating therein that he had come to attend a function of Bhartiya Janta Party at New Town Hall at Dhanbad on January 19, 2016, when he made the remark in question.

It was further stated in Azad's complaint that Tomar, in order to commit a breach of peace and to create hatred and enmity had given such speech which is unpleasant, and that such derogatory remarks had resulted in hurting the sentiments of crores of people including the complainant and the witnesses.

Initially, in January 2016, the C.J.M. transferred the case to the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class under the provision of Section 192(1) Cr.P.C, pursuant thereto, the Magistrate, after going through the record, dismissed the complaint petitioning September 2016.

This dismissal order was challenged by the complainant in Criminal Revision, which was allowed in April 2017 and pursuant to the revisional order, the Magistrate took cognizance of offence in May 2017.

Thereafter, Tomar filed the instant plea before the Jharkhand High Court for quashing the entire criminal proceeding instituted against him, including the 2017 order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance under section 504 of IPC.

He also sought quashing of a 2016 order whereby the case was transferred under section 192(1) Cr.P.C. and also for quashing of 2017 order whereby the Sessions Judge allowed the Criminal Revision.

Court's observations 

The Court, at the outset, observed that for the offence under section 504 I.P.C. it is necessary that the insult should be delivered to the person insulted with the intention that he may be there and then provoked to commit an offence but where there is no such publication, no offence under section 504 I.P.C. is committed.

In the instant case, the Court, after perusing the complaint, added, that the offence was not made out. Further, the Court observed that in January 2016, the order of transferring the case to the Judicial Magistrate was passed on the format drafted by the Court and that it wasn't a cognizance taking order.

"In this order Sections are handwritten. The name of the complainant is handwritten and the transferee court is handwritten. The date is also handwritten. These words have been put in the order in a blank space and by handwritten and thus it cannot be said that order has been passed after application of mind. Moreover, in the light of discussions made here-in-above, there is no cognizance order and merely by this order the case has been transferred to a particular Magistrate," the Court remarked.

Further, the Court also found the revisional order to be erroneous as also the Cognizance taking order of May 2017 as it stressed that the Magistrate had passed the order on the strength of revisional order, meaning thereby, that the Court passed the order without applying the independent mind in which the Court has taken cognizance.

In the light of discussions made here-in-above, the entire criminal proceeding instituted against Tomar, including the May 2017 order of Magistrate to take cognizance under section 504 of the IPC and the order to transfer case under section 192(1) Cr.P.C. and the revisional order were quashed.

Case title: Narendra Singh Tomar v. The State of Jharkhand and another

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 14

Click Here To Read/Download Order