IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE

CRR 1565 of 2015

Aveek Sarkar & Ors.

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Anr.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv

Ms. Somopriyo Chowdhury

Mr. Soumitra Datta

For the Opposite party No.2 : Mr. Mohammde Amin

Ms. Mahjabeen

Mr. Ghulam Muztaba

Heard on : 21.05.2025 Judgement on : 21.08.2025

Dr.Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. Petitioners herein/accused persons have assailed the impugned criminal proceeding being complaint case no. 34 of 2015 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, 20th court, Calcutta, under section 500 of the

Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. A petition of complaint was filed by the opposite party herein before the court below alleging that on 13th September, 2014 a news item was

published in the daily Ananda Bazar Patrika in which the members of the Student Islamic Organization were shocked to read representation in which serious allegations were made against the opposite party/organization which is defamatory in nature and the imputations were made by stating that the investigating officer has mentioned that some of these persons have connection with the ex-general secretary of Students Islamic Movement of India one Ahmed Hasan Imran, who is now a member of student Islamic organization and said Imran had mobilized large number of Muslim youth from park circus area with bombs and other weapons and had an active role in sending them to Naliakhali and those Muslims youth committed looting in the area and set many houses on fire.

3. FIR makers contention is that the news item under the heading ‘Imran Niye Satraka Koren Rajjer Goendara’ contents untrue statements of information published without any justification as said Ahmed Hasan Imran was never a member of the opposite party namely Student Islamic Organization but due to the publication of the Impugned report the estimation of opposite party/Islamic organization was diminished in public and also in front of persons known to them. Their further contention is that by a letter dated 18th November 2014 sent through advocate, the opposite party demanded an apology and withdrawal of the allegations in the impugned report from the editor, publisher and printer within 15 days of receipt of the said letter, but till date no apology was tendered to them. The petitioner no. l, 2 and 3 are the editor, reporter and publisher respectively of the said daily newspaper, which had published the said news.

4. Being aggrieved by the impugned proceeding Mr. Ganguly, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that on a perusal of the complaint itself it appears that even if the allegations made in the FIR are given face value and taken in their entirety, it only depicts that a report was given by the detectives of Intelligence Branch of the State of West Bengal regarding the activities of Ahmed Hasan Imran. There appears to be no imputation made against the opposite party /Islamic organization in the impugned news report. There is no mention in the report that the organization or its members are engaged in any anti-national or anti-social activities. Even it cannot be presumed from bare reading of the news report that any allegation has been levelled against the opposite party/Islamic organization and as such opposite party herein cannot be said to be an aggrieved person of the alleged offence within the meaning section 199(1) of the Cr.P.C. and except upon a complaint made by a person aggrieved by the offence, no cognizance can be taken by a court in regard to an offence of defamation.

5. He further submits that from a perusal of complaint it also appears that except mentioning the petitioners’ designation in the complaint, there is no averment made in the body of the complaint regarding any specific role taken by the petitioners in commissioning of the alleged offence. Furthermore when it is admitted position that the purported publication was made in a n