Saurav Chaudhuri vs State of West Bengal & Anr

Suvra Ghosh, J

A complaint was lodged by one Subrata Kumar Saha, the private opposite party herein before the Inspector-in-Charge, Jhargram Police Station on 27th April, 2022 against Zee 24 Ghanta channel alleging that on 23rd April, 2022, the channel telecast news that several offices of a particular party remained closed after 6.00 P.M. and the leaders of the party confined themselves in their respective homes. Such telecast was creating and promoting threat and tension in the locality, causing breach of peace and encouraging miscreants. The complainant sought necessary steps for restricting the channel from telecasting such news. Jhargram Police Station Case no. 127 of 2022 was registered. Since the petitioner is a press reporter attached to the channel, notice under section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was issued upon him. The petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer and was asked to produce the relevant footage of the channel. The petitioner informed the investigating authority that all the electronic documents were within the domain of the channel and the petitioner had no authority or control over them. The said footage could be collected from Zee 24 Ghanta directly. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the proceeding.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner in his capacity as a press reporter was merely performing his duties by reporting some news for knowledge of the public at large and there was no mens rea in commission of the alleged acts. A vexatious and politically motivated proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner which is required to be quashed.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State has produced copy of the case diary and has submitted that the petitioner has not cooperated in investigation of the case by refusing to produce the relevant footage of the news before the investigating agency.

The private opposite party has not been represented despite service of notice.

It appears that proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner under sections 468/500/505(1) (b)/120B/153 of the Indian Penal Code. In order to appreciate where the FIR discloses commission of the offences as alleged, it is necessary to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

“468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.- Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document of electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Punishment for defamation.- Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Statements conducing to public mischief.- (1) Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report,-

(b) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquillity;

120-B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.- (1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.

(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.

Wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot- if rioting be committed-if not committed.- Whoever, malignantly, or wantonly, by doing anything which is illegal, gives provocation to any person intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause the offence of rioting to be committed, shall, if the offence of rioting be committed in consequence of such provocation, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both; and if the offence of rioting be not committed, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.”

The FIR demonstrates that certain news was telecast by the petitioner in Zee 24 Ghanta to the effect that party offices were remaining closed after 6.00 P.M. and the leaders were confined to their respective homes. No prima facie ingredient of the offences alleged is disclosed in the FIR.

Investigation has proceeded sufficiently. The petitioner has responded to the notice issued upon him under section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and submitted a statement before the investigating authority that the footage called for by the authority was in custody and control of the channel and could be obtained from the channel. The petitioner was not in a position to produce the same before the authority. Most of the witnesses whose statements have been recorded under sections 161/164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure owe allegiance to a particular political party of which the private opposite party/defacto complainant is also a member/spokesperson. No independent evidence has yet been collected by the investigating agency in course of investigation.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the authority in State of Haryana and Others v/s. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 426 has laid down certain categories of cases wherein inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised by the High Court for quashing the proceedings. Some of such categories are as hereunder:-

i. where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R.do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

ii. where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

In the present case, the FIR or the evidence collected during investigation does not disclose commission of any offence or make out a prima facie case against the petitioner. The news that was broadcast does not prima facie attract the provision of sections 468/500/505(1) (b)/120B/153 of the Indian Penal Code. The proceeding initiated against the petitioner appears to be vexatious and frivolous and allowing the proceeding to continue shall amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

In the result, the revisional application succeeds in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

G.R. Case no. 392 of 2022 including the First Information Report pertaining to Jhargram Police Station Case no. 127 of 2022 dated April 24, 2022 pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhargram be quashed qua the petitioner.

Urgent certified website copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance with the usual formalities.