Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Charges Against Senior Citizen in Jharkhand

The case of Hari Nandan Singh v. State of Jharkhand revolved around allegations of intimidation, religious insult, and obstruction of a public servant. The appellant, an 80-year-old man, was accused under Sections 353, 298, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) based on a complaint filed by a government official in Bokaro, Jharkhand. After an exhaustive legal battle, the Supreme Court quashed the charges, emphasizing the importance of judicial scrutiny in protecting individuals from frivolous prosecution.

Background of the Case

The case originated from an incident on November 18, 2020, when the complainant, an Urdu Translator and Acting Clerk at the Sub-Divisional Office in Chas, visited the appellant’s residence to deliver official documents. The complainant alleged that:

The appellant initially refused to accept the documents but later did so upon insistence.
The appellant allegedly insulted the complainant based on his religion by calling him “Miyan-Tiyan” and “Pakistani.”
The appellant used criminal force against the complainant to deter him from performing his official duties.

Following the complaint, an FIR was registered at Bokaro Sector-IV Police Station under Sections 353 (assault to deter a public servant), 298 (deliberate intent to wound religious feelings), and 504 (intentional insult to provoke a breach of peace) of the IPC. A charge sheet was filed, and the Magistrate took cognizance of the case, summoning the appellant.

Legal Proceedings

The appellant filed an application for discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), arguing that the allegations were baseless and did not constitute any offense under the IPC. However, the Judicial Magistrate rejected the discharge application on March 24, 2022, and proceeded with the trial.

Subsequent appeals were filed:

The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appellant’s revision petition on February 20, 2023.
The High Court upheld the Magistrate’s order on August 28, 2023.
The appellant then approached the Supreme Court seeking relief.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellant, represented by senior counsel, contended that:

No prima facie case was made against him under Sections 353, 298, or 504 IPC.
The alleged religious insult did not amount to wounding religious sentiments under Section 298 IPC.
There was no act of criminal force or assault to justify charges under Section 353 IPC.
The alleged remarks, though in bad taste, did not provoke a breach of peace as required under Section 504 IPC.
The case was an abuse of the legal process and should be quashed.

Respondents’ Arguments

The State of Jharkhand, represented by government counsel, argued that:

The charges were framed based on sufficient evidence collected during the investigation.
The appellant’s statements were offensive and capable of inciting communal discord.
The complainant, being a public servant, was obstructed from performing his duties, justifying the charge under Section 353 IPC.
The lower courts rightly refused to discharge the appellant.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, led by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, analyzed the ingredients of the alleged offenses and the material on record. The Court held:

There was no assault or use of criminal force by the appellant to justify charges under Section 353 IPC.
Although the appellant’s remarks were inappropriate, they did not constitute an offense under Section 298 IPC.
Section 504 IPC requires an act that provokes a breach of peace, which was absent in this case.
The appellant, at 80 years of age, should not be forced to undergo a trial based on weak and unsubstantiated allegations.

Key Verbal Arguments of the Court

“A bare perusal of the FIR reveals that the essential ingredients of the offenses alleged against the appellant under Sections 353, 298, and 504 IPC are not made out.”

“Evidently, there was no assault or use of force by the appellant to attract Section 353 IPC. Therefore, the High Court ought to have discharged the appellant under Section 353 IPC.”

“The statements made by the appellant, while in poor taste, do not amount to wounding the religious sentiments of the informant.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the charges against the appellant, ruling that:

The High Court’s decision upholding the trial court’s order was incorrect.
The appellant was discharged from all charges under Sections 353, 298, and 504 IPC.
The trial court’s proceedings against the appellant were set aside.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling is significant as it:

Reaffirms that criminal charges should not be framed unless a prima facie case is established.
Protects individuals from frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions.
Clarifies the scope of Sections 298 and 504 IPC, ensuring that free speech is not unduly curtailed.
Establishes that courts must exercise caution before subjecting elderly individuals to unnecessary legal harassment.

The judgment strengthens the legal safeguards against misuse of criminal law and reinforces the judiciary’s role in preventing injustice.

Petitioner Name: Hari Nandan Singh.
Respondent Name: State of Jharkhand.
Judgment By: Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.
Place Of Incident: Bokaro, Jharkhand.
Judgment Date: 10-02-2025.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: hari-nandan-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-10-02-2025.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in SC/ST Act Case
See all petitions in Judgment by B.V. Nagarathna
See all petitions in Judgment by Satish Chandra Sharma
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2025
See all petitions in 2025 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category