IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:-

HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS.

CRR 793 OF 2015 AVEEK SARKAR & ORS.

VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

For the Appellants : Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Ld. Sr. Adv.

Mr. Somopriyo Chowdhury, Adv Mr. Soumitra Datta, Adv.

Mr. Matri Prasad Das, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Ranabir Ray Chowdhury, Adv.

Last heard on : 12.06.2025 Judgement on : 11.07.2025 CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J. :-

1. This is an application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the petitioners for quashing of proceedings in GR case number 1691 of 2012 pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah under 153A of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has come before the court with the ground that he has been falsely arraigned and implicated in this case being Domjur PS case number 176 of 2012 dated March 19, 2012 at the behest of the Opposite Party No.2 herein which was registered for investigation under Section 153 A of IPC . The complaint was lodged alleging that on

19.3.2012 in the 2nd page of the “T2” of the English news daily “The Telegraph’ under the ‘Twit Of the day ‘column’ a picture pertaining to the cricketing field was published which deeply hurt the religious sentiments of people following Islam. Furthermore the publication was made intentionally with the motive of hurting religious sentiments of Muslims’. On the basis of the aforesaid written complaint the case was registered initially against the Editor, printer and publisher of ‘The Telegraph’ Newspaper. The petitioner immediately after being aware of the complaint filed an application for anticipatory bail before the High court which was allowed. On completion of investigation, the investigating agency submitted the charge sheet against all the three petitioners, in spite of the fact that none of the petitioners were named in the first information report. Vide an order dated 14 January 2015, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Howrah took cognizance on the basis of such charge sheet and directed to issue process against the petitioners. The petitioners have come before this court for quashing of the proceeding.

2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner by the learned Senior advocate Mr.

Ganguly that the First Information Report was made on 19th March, 2012 was in a section of the supplement to the main newspaper called.t-2” and it would be evident that the publication was made solely on the strength of views of a particular person and never reflected the view of the newspaper per se. It is specifically submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the place of publication and size of the same would also would reveal that the newspaper did not intend to publish its own thoughts/views and any or had intend to promote enmity between different groups on the ground of religion or otherwise. Furthermore on the next day that is on 20 March 2012, a publication was made on the front page of the newspaper there in tendering unconditional apology to the public at large. The apology was made on the front page of the newspaper to ensure that no class of people, having specific religious believe, felt insulted and humiliated in any form or manner. That apart the publication was a reproduction of a publication which had already surfaced over the internet by a third person.

3. It is strenuously argued by the Learned Senior advocate that section 153 A of the penal code, which lays down the punishment for “promoting enmity between different groups, on grounds of religion, race, etc. Place of birth, residence, language etc. and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.” is subject to the bar under Section 196 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973, which restrict the power of a court from taking cognizance in respect of an offence punishable under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, except with previous sanction of the state government or the central government as the case maybe.