Finding no material to substantiate the allegations against a man booked for allegedly mocking and broadcasting derogatory content on YouTube against Mamata Banerjee & other political leaders, the Calcutta High Court has quashed the criminal case registered against him.

The Criminal Revisional application had been preferred by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the proceedings arising out of a case registered under Sections 153,500,501,509,505,120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Single Bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta said, “Non-fulfilment of ingredients of the offence as alleged and no data is available to substantiate the allegations. Even no other sufficient materials or link of conspiracy was also brought on record against the petitioner with regard to broadcasting of the defamatory video clips or speech with sole intent to malign people and provoke breach of peace by endangering social harmony within the society.”

Advocate Mrityunjoy Chatterjee represented the Petitioners, while Advocate Suman De represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

The incident dates back to the year 2002 when a person named Saif Salim lodged a complaint alleging that the present petitioner entered into a criminal conspiracy with other persons and broadcasted derogatory speech on social media platform ‘YouTube’ against the Chief Minister of the State of West Bengal and mocked her and other political leaders with sole intent to malign people and provoke breach of peace by endangering social harmony within the society.

On the basis of the said complaint, the aforesaid case was registered against the present petitioner and others and the investigation was initiated. The petitioner was taken into custody and was enlarged on bail by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.

Arguments

It was the case of the Petitioner that he is no way involved with the alleged offence and the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with a mala fide intention with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioner.

On the contrary, the Respondent-State contended that the petitioner was involved in broadcasting derogatory video with sole intent to malign people and provoke breach of peace by endangering social harmony within the society through the YouTube channel.

Reasoning

The Bench found that the said broadcasting on social media platform i.e. YouTube post, was allegedly circulated by the petitioner. But unfortunately, the Investigating Officer could not retrieve the video clips or contents of such broadcasting allegedly made by the petitioner herein. Investigating Officer only seized one blue colour Samsung mobile phone from the petitioner during investigation. From the entire case records, the Bench did not find that the mobile was sent for expert opinion to ascertain that the same gadget was used for the broadcasting of the alleged derogatory video or speech. Furthermore, no data of video clips or speech was retrieved from the YouTube channel to substantiate at least prima facie allegations made by the complainant.

The Bench also did not find any sufficient material collected against the present petitioner to allow the proceedings to be continued against him because there was no possibility of conviction due to the non-availability of sufficient materials. “Mere filing of charge sheet without any material or shaky evidence would not suffice the purpose of continuing trial against the Petitioner”, the Bench added.

The Bench was thus of the view that the proceedings deserved to be quashed under the inherent power granted under Section 482 of the CrPC insofar as the petitioner is concerned. It was also noted that the present matter fell under the category of case mentioned in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajanlal & Ors. (1992) wherein the extraordinary power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 may be espoused.

Thus, the High Court quashed the proceedings registered against the Petitioner.

Cause Title: Sourav Paul v. State of West Bengal & Another (Case No.: C.R.R. 2581 of 2023)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Mrityunjoy Chatterjee, Manas Das, Arindam Poali

Respondent: Advocate Suman De

Click here to read/download Order


Calcutta High CourtJustice Ajay Kumar Gupta

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.