AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is a journalist and an employee of ABP News Network Pvt. Ltd. (in short, the said company) which runs a bengali news television
channel, namely, ABP Ananda. On 25th March, 2018, the said news channel reported an armed possession which had originated from West Post
Police Station on the basis of a captured video footage. Subsequent thereto, by letters dated 31st March, 2018 and 2nd April, 2018, the respondent
no.4 directed the petitioner to appear in aid of an enquiry.
The petitioner by a letter dated 3rd April, 2018 requested the said respondent to provide the details of the nature of enquiry. In reply thereto, by a letter
dated 3rd April, 2018, it was intimated by the respondent no.4 that for the purpose of verification of a serious allegation, his presence is required.
Thereafter a further letter was issued on 21st April, 2018 asking the petitioner to make himself available before the respondent no. 4 on 30th April,
2018. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has approached this Court.
Mr. Ghosh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that from the tone and tenor of the letter dated 21st April, 2018, it would be
explicit that the respondent no. 4 was intending to seek explanations from the petitioner as an accused/proposed accused pertaining to some allegations
against him and that the presence of the petitioner as demanded would amount to putting him under testimonial compulsion and curtailment of his
fundamental rights.
The said notice also does not specify the provision of the Code under which the same had been issued and the intent of the respondents is to harass
him and such action warrants interference of this Court. In support of his contention, Mr. Ghosh has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered in
the case of Lalita Kumari - Vs. - Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1.
Per contra, Mr. Dutta, learned Advocate-General appearing for the State respondents submits that the existence of a right and the infringement
thereto are the foundations of the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226. No violation of any such right has been pleaded. The writ petition has
been preferred on an erroneous premise that the petitioner would be heckled and harassed.
He has been asked to appear only to assist the police authorities to conduct investigation on the petition, being West Port Police Station L. P No-
183/17 submitted by the organisers of the procession. In spite of repeated reminders, the petitioner had denied to appear before the police authorities
and has prevented the respondents from ascertaining whether the information furnished reveals any cognizable offence.
In the letter dated 21st April, 2018 it has been stated that the petitioner has made vile and malicious propaganda and in the same it has also been
observed that if the petitioner fails to appear in the police station the authorities would be compelled to initiate necessary proceedings against him.
Prima facie this Court is satisfied that there is justification in the petitioner’s perception of threat and that the issuance of a restraining order will
not cause a greater loss and prejudice to the investigating agency than the loss and prejudice, the absence thereof, is likely to cause to the petitioner.
Accordingly, there shall be an interim order in terms of prayer “(f)†to the writ petition til l the end of June, 2018 or until further orders whichever
is earlier. The respondents would be at liberty to file their affidavit-in-opposition within a week after the Vacation. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within
a week thereafter. The parties would be at liberty to mention the matter for final hearing after expiry of the period as fixed towards exchange of
affidavits.