JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of initiation and continuation of proceedings being Complaint Case No. C.N. 471 of 2018 under Sections 153A/295A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 pending before the Learned Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.

2. The petitioner’s case is that the Petitioner is an Indian Politician, writer and a former career international diplomat who is currently serving as a Member of Parliament, Loksabha from Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, since 2009. He was a Former Union Minister from 2009 to 2014 and served as a Minister of State for External Affair. He also serves as the Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs and is a permanent resident of Kerala as mentioned in the cause title.

3. The Opposite Party No. 2 initiated the aforesaid proceedings under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 153A/295A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult of National Honour Act, 1971 before the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, which has been registered as Complaint Case No. C.N. 471 of 2018.

4. That it is alleged in the complaint that:-

“On 11.07.2018 the complainant while sitting with his friends Sanjoy Som and Sivam Singh, came across a shocking news on many different news channel that the accused person has made a statement in public in front of many individuals and various news reporters whereby the accused allegedly stated that if citizens of India vote for a particular political party in the ensuing General Election 2019, in such event that particular political party ‘….tear up the Constitution of India and write a new one. And that will be a new one to what will enshrine the Principles of Hindu Rashtra that will remove equality from the minorities, it will create a Hindu Pakistan and that is not what Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Maulana Azad, Sardar Patel and the great heroes of freedom struggle thought.”

5. That the instant petition of complaint was placed before the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, and after receiving the complaint and the initial deposition by the Opposite Party No. 2, the Learned Magistrate by an order dated 13.07.2018 was pleased to take cognizance and issue process against the petitioner, admittedly who is a resident outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Learned Court, without following the mandatory provisions prescribed under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. The Learned Magistrate on presentation of the complaint and deposition of the complainant took cognizance and relying on the enquiry under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, issued summons upon the accused person/petitioner herein.

7. The petitioner states that it is evident from the petition of complaint that the Learned Magistrate took the cognizance without applying his judicial mind and issued process against the petitioner and subsequently by an order dated 13.08.2019 issued a Warrant of Arrest against the petitioner. It is further stated that the law as laid down under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that ‘a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence of complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses and also by the Magistrate’ but in the present case that procedure has not been followed by the Learned Magistrate.

8. That the Learned Magistrate without following the procedure under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure upon receipt of the complaint and taking cognizance of the offences as alleged is a gross violation of the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Learned Mag