Jharkhand High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Hemant Soren Over 2014 Poll Speech

Update: 2026-07-06 07:06 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

The Jharkhand High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against Chief Minister Hemant Soren arising out of his 2014 election campaign speech, holding that his remarks regarding the proposed amendment of the Chotanagpur Tenancy (CNT) Act, Santhal Parganas Tenancy (SPT) Act and labour laws did not constitute an offence under Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. A...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Jharkhand High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against Chief Minister Hemant Soren arising out of his 2014 election campaign speech, holding that his remarks regarding the proposed amendment of the Chotanagpur Tenancy (CNT) Act, Santhal Parganas Tenancy (SPT) Act and labour laws did not constitute an offence under Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary was hearing a petition seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings, the order taking cognizance dated August 16, 2017, and the order framing charges dated July 8, 2019. The Court further held that cognizance of the offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code was barred in the absence of a written complaint by the competent public servant as mandated under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The case arose from a public meeting addressed by Soren at Adityapur on November 24, 2014 during the Assembly election campaign. According to the prosecution, Soren made sarcastic remarks against opposition parties regarding an alleged conspiracy to amend the SPT Act, CNT Act, the Land Acquisition Act and labour laws, and stated that if such amendments were carried out, “nobody can stop the flowing of a river of blood” in the State. Alleging violation of the Model Code of Conduct, the Block Development Officer-cum-Magistrate of the Flying Squad lodged the FIR, following which a case was registered under Sections 188 and 506 IPC and Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act.

Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that cognizance of the offence under Section 188 IPC was illegal in view of the mandatory bar under Section 195 CrPC, as no written complaint had been filed by the competent public servant. It was further argued that the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, did not disclose the ingredients of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC or the offence under Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, which requires promotion of enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens on the ground of religion, race, caste, community or language.

Examining the record, the High Court found that neither the FIR nor any other material referred to the promulgation of any order allegedly violated by the petitioner. The Court further noted that no complaint had been filed by a public servant in terms of Section 195 CrPC.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Bench observed that compliance with Section 195 CrPC is mandatory and that non-compliance vitiates the prosecution. The Court held that the Magistrate had committed a grave illegality in taking cognizance under Section 188 IPC, particularly when there was no allegation satisfying the essential ingredients of the offence.

The High Court also found that the allegations did not attract Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act. The Bench observed that the only allegation against the petitioner was that he had expressed anguish over a perceived conspiracy to amend the CNT Act, SPT Act and labour laws. The Court held that, even if those allegations were accepted in their entirety, they did not amount to promoting hatred or enmity between different classes of citizens on the grounds specified under Section 125 of the Act.

Holding that none of the offences for which cognizance had been taken were made out, the Court concluded that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings, the order taking cognizance and the order framing charges insofar as they related to the petitioner.

Case Title: Hemant Soren v. State of Jharkhand

Case Number: Cr.M.P. No. 678 of 2026

Appearance:

For the Petitioner: Senior Advocate Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Mr. Pradeep Chandra and Mr. Deepankar.

For the State: Mr. Achyut Keshav, Sr. AAG, Mr. Shashank Shekhar, AC to Sr. AAG and Mr. Shubham Gautam.

Click Here To Read/Download Order



Tags:    

Similar News