IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLAT SIDE PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE CRR 2428 of 2017 Anirban Chattopadhyay & Ors.

Vs.

Krishnendu Nararyan Chowdhury For the petitioners : Mr. Sandipan Ganguly Mr. Somopriya Chowdhury Mr. Soumitra Dutta Mr. Matri Prasad Das Heard on : 22.04.2025 Judgment on : 20.05.2025 Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. The petitioners herein have sought for quashing of a complaint case being case no. 382C/2017 initiated by opposite party herein under section 500/501/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) which relates to a publication carried in a widely circulated Bengali daily on 19th December, 2016, covering a news article relating to complainant/opposite party herein. 2. The allegations levelled by the opposite party/complainant is to the effect that vide aforesaid publication under the headline ‘Abhijukto Krishnendu Nararyan’ ( Krishnendu Narayan has been made as accused), in which it was reported that a complaint has been lodged by house owners of a house at ward no. 10 Imam Bara Lane, Malda English Bazar Municipality, against the opposite party herein and his associates for threatening and resisting construction of roof at the house of said persons on a demand of Rs. 19,00,000/-. The petitioner no. 1 and 2 are the editor and the publishers of the said newspaper and petitioner no.3 is the reporter.

3. On the basis of the written complaint the court below after taking cognizance and after examining the complainant on affirmation, issued process against the accused persons including the petitioners herein under section 500/501/34 of the IPC, invoking his jurisdiction under section 204 of the Cr.P.C.

4. Being aggrieved by the impugned proceeding Mr. Gangully learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that on perusal of the news report it would reflect that the said news report is an objective peace of reporting which simply states that a complaint has been filed against the opposite party by some residents of ward no. 10 Imambara Lane for demanding Rs. 19,00,000/- to permit them to go on with the construction. It is further submitted that the said news report by itself also states that the response of the opposite party who denied such allegations levelled by the said local residents, the response of the police as well as the version of the concerned family members of the family who had alleged demand of money by the opposite party and his associates, has also been mentioned in the report.

5. Mr. Gangully in this context further argued that from the four corners of the news article and also from the contents of petition of complaint, it is clear that it does not disclose the ingredients of criminal defamation as defined under section 499 of the IPC. His contention is in the impugned news article nothing can be found which attributes any intention on the part of the petitioners herein to cause harm to the reputation of the opposite party. In fact the news report has only reported regarding the complaint filed against such public servant in relations to his acts, while discharging such public duties.

6. He further argued that news article clearly discloses an objective news report which does not contain any opinion by the newspaper but simply covers news of public importance where there is an allegation levelled in writing by some of the residents of ward no.10, Imam bara Lane against the opposite party and where the response of the opposite party has also been reported in the news report and as such it cannot amount to defamation.

7. Accordingly he argued that an article published in good faith falls within the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression, enshrined under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India and cannot warrant prosecution for defamation. In this context learned Counsel for the petitioner further argued that the opposite party /complainant himself had admitted in his initial deposition that a