Point of law: Court in several cases, newspaper reports doesn’t constitute evidence. A petition based on unconfirmed news reports, without verifying their authenticity should not normally be entertained. As noted above, such petitions do not provide any basis for verifying the correctness of statements made and information given in the petition. It would be desirable for the courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as aforestated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the courts.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India of this Court seeking setting aside and quashing of the criminal proceeding instituted against him by a complaint case, C.R. Case No. 188/2015, initially instituted before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Sadar), Karimganj, Assam and after being transferred from the said Court, presently pending before the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj, Assam. The petitioner has also sought setting aside and quashing of various orders passed in the said criminal proceeding including an order dated 18.03.2015 and an order dated 01.06.2015. By the order dated 18.03.2015, the learned Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj upon receipt of the complaint, took cognizance of the offences under Sections 153/153A/295A/298 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ and/or ‘the Penal Code’) and issued process (summons) against the petitioner for his appearance as the sole accused person before the Court on 06.05.2015. By the subsequent order dated 01.06.2015, the learned Counsel of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj issued non-bailable warrant of arrest (NBWA) against the petitioner.

2. It is apposite to state that the respondent No. 2 herein as the complainant had filed a complaint in writing before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj on 17.03.2015 and the said complaint has been registered and numbered as C.R. Case No. 188/2015. After such registration, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj made over the case to the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj for disposal. Upon receipt of the case record of C.R. Case No. 188/2015, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj passed afore-mentioned order dated 18.03.2015.

3. It transpires that pursuant to institution of the complaint case, C.R. Case No. 188/2015, the petitioner had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by a writ petition, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 69/2015 (Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law and Others). When the said petition came up for hearing on 02.07.2015, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while issuing notice, made it clear that the grievances raised with regard to the specific cases registered under different jurisdictions may be agitated by the petitioner, if so advised, by instituting appropriate proceedings before the competent court, including the jurisdictional High Courts within a period of 6 (six) weeks. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had stayed the execution of non-bailable warrants, as might have been issued against the petitioner, for the said period of 6 (six) weeks. It was also made clear in the order that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India did not express any opinion on the merits of the specific cases instituted against the petitioner. Pursuant to the said order dated 02.07.2015, the present writ petition was filed on 17.07.2015. This Court by an order dated 24.07.2015 while issuing Rule and calling for the records, had stayed the impugned orders including the order dated 18.03.2015 and the further proceedings in respect of the complaint case, C.R. Case No. 188/2015.

4. Heard Dr. Subramanian Swamy, petitioner in person, assisted by Mr. B.K. Mahajan, Mr. S. Sabharwal and Mr. R. Chakroborty, learned counsel. Also heard Mr. K. Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate and Ms. M. Barman, learned Junior Government Advocate for the respondent No. 1, State of Assam and Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2-complainant.

5. Dr. Swamy appearing in person, has, apart from others, mainly made four-fold submissions. At the first, he has submitted that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj (‘the trial court’) while issuing process agai