Back
2024 Supreme(Cal) 243
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
TIRTHANKAR GHOSH, J.
Sri Ritwik Kumar Banerjee – Appellant
Versus
Sri Surajit Chanda – Respondent
CRR 1951 of 2022 With CRR 1071 of 2018 With CRR 2406 of 2015
Decided on : 16-04-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Arunangshu Chakraborty, Mr. Avijit Kr. Bera, Ms. Zeba Rashid, Ms. Shaika Amrin.
For the Respondent: Mr. Syed Shahid Imam, Md. Khairul, Mohd. Shahbaaz Khan.
IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that it is not defamation to prefer an accusation in good faith to a lawful authority, as per Exception Eight to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. The court also emphasized the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which restricts the court from taking cognizance of an offence under Section 211 except on a written complaint from that court or a subordinate court.
Headnote:
Defamation - Criminal Proceedings - Indian Penal Code - Section 500, Section 211 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 500 and Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. It highlighted the legal principle that it is not defamation to prefer an accusation in good faith to a lawful authority, as per Exception Eight to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. The court also emphasized the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which prohibits a court from taking cognizance of an offence under Section 211 except on a written complaint from that court or a subordinate court. The interpretation of these legal provisions influenced the court's decision to quash the proceedings under Section 500 and Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a complaint by an Assistant Professor against the Security Officer of the university, alleging false implication in a criminal case. The complainant was arrested and subsequently acquitted of the charges, leading to a petition to quash the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's act and conduct fell within Exception Eight to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, as it was not defamation to prefer an accusation in good faith to a lawful authority. The court also ruled that the proceedings under Section 500 and Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code were barred under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Issues: The issues involved the alleged false implication of the complainant in a criminal case, the authority to initiate proceedings under Section 211 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of legal provisions, including Exception Eight to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code and the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It held that the petitioner's actions did not constitute defamation and that the proceedings were barred under the relevant provisions.
Final Decision: The court quashed the proceedings under Section 500 read with Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, and allowed all the revisional applications filed by the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
Tirthankar Ghosh, J.
1. The present batch of revisional applications were preferred challenging the proceedings being C-04/2015, wherein process was issued under Section 500/211 of the Indian Penal Code and is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, 6th Court, Sealdah including all the orders passed therein.
2. The three revisional applications arise out of the same case being C-04/2015 which was initially filed before the Learned ACJM, Sealdah and subsequently transferred to the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, 6th Court, Sealdah. The first revisional application being CRR 2406 of 2015 was filed challenging the proceedings as well as the order dated 07.03.2015, by which the learned Magistrate was pleased to take cognizance of the offence. The second revisional application being CRR 1071 of 2018 was also filed challenging the proceeding including the order dated 29.03.2018, by which the learned Magistrate was reluctant to stall the proceedings, as there was no interim order of stay and fixed date for examination under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The third application being CRR 1951 of 2021 was also filed for quashing of the proceedings including the order dated 18.05.2022 wherein the learned Magistrate fixed date for examination under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. inspite of the earlier revisional applications pending before the High Court. As, the subject matter of the three revisional applications and the prayers advanced therein are same, all of them are take up together and disposed of by a common judgment.
3. The allegations made in the petition of complaint were to the effect that the complainant is an Assistant Professor (Senior Grade), associated with Rabindra Bharti University. The accused/petitioner happens to be the Security Officer posted at Rabindra Bharti University. The accused/petitioner lodged a complaint with the Officer-in-charge, Sinthi Police Station alleging that on 29.07.2011 at about 12.00 p.m. a scuffle took place between Sri Basu Dev Nandi, Senior Assistant on one side and Sri Shoubhik Biswas, Sri Shuvijit Das, Sri Biswajit Haldeer, Sri Nilanjan Das, Sri Sommohan Dey and Sri Surajit Chanda and in the said scuffle Basu Dev Nandi was injured and ultimately died. Pursuant to the said complaint Sinthi Police Station case no.96 dated 29.07.2011 was registered for investigation against Shoubhik Biswas, Shuvijit Das, Biswajit Halder, Nilanjan Das, Sommohan Dey and Surajit Chanda (complainant) under Section 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After the investigation commenced the complainant along with others were arrested from inside the campus of Rabindra Bharti University on 29.07.2011 and after investigation, the investigating officer of the case filed charge-sheet being no. 101/2011 under Section 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code against Shoubhik Biswas, Shuvijit Das, Biswajit Halder, Nilanjan Das, Sommohan Dey and Surajit Chanda on 22.09.2011. The complainant was granted bail in CRM No. 7945 of 2011 on 19.09.2011 by the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta and was released on 21.09.2011. The complainant alleges that he was in custody for 52 days which tarnished his image and reputation in the eyes of his relatives, neighbours, colleagues, peers, students and the non-teaching staff of Rabindra Bharti University while he was completely innocent of the alleged offences. During the trial, in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sealdah the prosecution cited 12 witnesses in order to prove its case and the present accused was called in as prosecution witness no.1. During his cross-examination the accused admitted that the complainant herein was in the examination process and was engaged in Viva-Voce test on the date and time of alleged incident. The accused further admitted in his evidence-in-chief that the complainant herein reached the alleged place of occurrence after the alleged incident. The complainant thereafter contended that from the deposition of the accuse
