The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing the essential ingredients of alleged offenses and the court's power to quash proceedings if the allegations do not constitute a prima facie case.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of First Information Report being Santiniketan Police Station Case No. 112 of 2020 dated August 01, 2020, under Sections 341/323/325/392/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before the Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bolpur, Birbhum and consequential proceeding emanating there from.

2. Though the opposite party no.2 was represented on earlier dates fixed for hearing, the opposite party no.2 has not been represented at the time of final hearing.

3. Learned Public prosecutor has represented the state and placed the case diary along with a memo of evidence.

FACTS:-

4. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner was discharging his duties as the Vice Chancellor of Viswa-Bharati at Santiniketan at the time of alleged incident.

5. In early 2020, the entire world was faced with an unprecedented medical crisis owing to the spread of Covid-19 virus and as such University Grants Commission, New Delhi as a preventive measure had made an official communication vide its letter D.O. No.F No. 1-14/2020(Website) dated 05.03.2020. In furtherance thereof the University had held a meeting chaired by the Vice Chancellor in presence of all directors, principals of Bhavanas, Head of the Departments, Dean of Students Welfare, Proctor and other senior officials of the university had passed a notification being No. REG/Notify/156/COVID-19 dated 13.03.2020 which inter alia directed that the entire ashrama complex to be closed until further order.

6. The University had also passed a further notification being No. REG/Notify/156/90 dated 20.07.2020 inter alia directing that no mobile phone/camera shall be permitted in the Mandir premises during the prayer from July 22, 2020 onwards. The said notification was also uploaded in the University website on that very date itself. It is however stated in this context that it has always remained a convention and protocol of prohibiting the use of cameras and mobile phones in certain areas of the University including the Upasana Griha also known as the Mandir.

7. It is further stated by the petitioner that the opposite party no.2 claiming to be a freelance reporter had been trying to disturb the peace of the University with some vested interest and also indulged in various immoral and illegal activities.

8. On July 31, 2000 the staff of the University including the petitioner had undertaken a sanitization drive to ensure that the University remains safe for its day to day functioning in case the same was so directed by the authorities concerned. The said sanitization process was a discreet affair where no one except the staff of the University were invited to be a part of and in fact the presence of outsiders was strictly restricted as per the general social distaining protocols. The opposite party no.2 was however spotted by the staff of the University within its premises at “Siksha Bhavana” clicking photographs. There were lady staff present at the spot. The said opposite party no.2 was enquired regarding the purpose of his presence during the times of pandemic to which he could not give any plausible explanation. The opposite party no.2 although reprimanded was however let go with a warning of not indulging in such ill activities in future. The spirits of the opposite party no. 2 however did not seem to get dampened by such reprimand and rather he mistook the softness of the University authorities as their weakness. The opposite party no.2 on the very next morning, that is, on August 01, 2020, again entered the University premises without any justifiable reasons during the time of Covid 19 pandemic when even the regular academic activities/classes were suspended and he was found at the „Mandir? taking photographs with his mobile phone. The carrying of mobile phones and cameras was strictly prohibited in the “Mandir” (also known as Upasana Griha) premises and nearby areas of the ashrama