Anirban Chattopadhyay & Ors vs Krishnendu Nararyan Chowdhury on 20 May, 2025

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Anirban Chattopadhyay & Ors vs Krishnendu Nararyan Chowdhury on 20 May, 2025

                                                                         2025:CHC-AS:897


                   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

1
2025:CHC-AS:897
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

2
2025:CHC-AS:897
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 complaint has been lodged against

him before the police authorities at English Bazar Police Station for

demanding Rs. 19,00,000/-

8. Mr. Gangully further argued that the order issuing process by the

magistrate without compliance of section 202 of Cr.P.C is bad in law as the

petitioners/accused persons reside beyond the territorial jurisdiction of

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda, which is also reflected from the

3
2025:CHC-AS:897
petition of complaint itself. Accordingly under the mandatory provision laid

down in the amended section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the

court below ought to have made an enquiry before issuing process against

the petitioners. In the instant case magistrate did not conduct any such

enquiry under section 202 of the Code and issued outright process against

the petitioners only on the basis of petition of complaint and the initial

deposition recorded under section 200 of the Cr.P.C., and for which the

impugned proceeding also liable to be quashed. In this context he also relied

upon the judgment reported in Udai Shankar Awasthi Vs. State of U.P

reported in (2013) 2 SCC 435 and Vijay Dhanuka Vs. Najima Mamtaj

reported in (2014) 14 SCC 638. He further argued referring the case of

Greaves Cotton Limited & others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 454

that where a prima facie case is not made out, mere non-compliance of

section 202 of Cr.P.C would never deter the High Court from exercising it’s

power under section 482 Cr.P.C in such cases, where accused persons are

asked to face a criminal trial without any substantive cause of action being

made out.

9. Mr. Sourav Chatterjee learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

opposite parties argued that the complaint allegedly lodged by some of the

local residents against opposite party herein cannot be taken into account

while considering the application under section 482 of the Code as annexure

to the petition showing that a complaint has been lodged previously, cannot

be termed as evidence without being tested and proved.

10. In this context he relied upon judgment of State of M.P. Vs. Awadh

Kishore Gupta and others reported in (2004) 1 SCC 691. He further

4
2025:CHC-AS:897
argued that defences that may be available or facts/aspects which if

established during the trial, may lead to acquittal, are not grounds for

quashing the complaint at the threshold. At this stage the only question

relevant is whether the averments in the complaint spell out the ingredients

of the criminal offence or not and since the newspaper reporting discloses

offence against the accused persons and when trial court on being satisfied

has issued process, the High Court should not quash the proceeding by

exercising his jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code. In this context he

relied upon Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar Vs. State of Maharashtra and

others reported in (2019) 14 SCC 350 and Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs.

State of Bihar and others reported in (2019) 6 SCC 107.

11. Mr. Chatterjee further contended that the power conferred under

section 482 should be exercised with circumspection, to do real and

substantial justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the court and it

can be exercised only where complaint does not disclose any offence, which

is not the case in the present context. To support such contentions he relied

upon the judgment of C.B.I Vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava reported in

(2006) 7 SCC 188 and the case of C.B.I Vs. Ravi Arvind Khanna reported

in (2019) 10 SCC 686.

12. Mr. Chatterjee further argued that from the complaint and from the

initial deposition, it is clear that the allegations levelled against the

petitioners are required to be proved before court of law in order to ascertain

whether offence under section 500 and 501 of IPC was made out or not and

at this stage High Court is not supposed to examine the entire issue as to

whether the offence under those sections is made out or not at pre-trial

5
2025:CHC-AS:897
stage. In this context he relied upon the judgment of State of M.P Vs.

Yogendra Singh & Another reported in (2020) 12 SCC 588 and Kaptan

Singh Vs. State of U.P reported in (2021) 9 SCC 535.

13. Referring the judgment of Mohd Abdulla Khan Vs. Prakash K.

reported in (2018) 1 SCC 615, learned Counsel for the opposite party

contended, the contents of any news item carried in newspaper if

defamatory as defined under section 499 IPC, the mere printing of such

material, knowing and having reasons to believe that such matter is

defamatory, itself constitutes a distinct offence under section 501 of IPC.

Referring the judgment reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1491 and (2024)

2 SCC 86, Mr. Chatterjee further contended that where the offence of

defamation is claimed by the accused to have not been committed based on

any of the exceptions and a prayer for quashing is made on the basis of

materials which were not before the magistrate, the High Court cannot go

further and enlarge the scope of enquiry, if the accused seeks to rely on

material, which were not there before the magistrate and it is based on the

proposition that what the magistrate could not do, the High Court may not

do.

14. He further contended that though the High Court’s power under

section 482 is always there to do real and substantial justice but where

magistrate issued process recording due satisfaction, such order can only be

interfered, if on a reading of complaint, the substance of the statements on

oath of the complainant and documentary evidence as produced, no offence

has been made out and allowing the proceeding to continue would be a mere

abuse of the legal process.

6

2025:CHC-AS:897

15. Accordingly Mr. Chatterjee argued that though learned Counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued much that the newspaper

reporting was made on “good faith” or for the “public good” but they are

always a question of fact. The petitioners will have to show that the belief in

his impugned reporting had a rational basis and was not just a blind simple

belief, where the element of due care and attention plays an important role.

The persons alleging good faith has to establish as a fact that he made

enquiry before he made the imputation and he has to give reasons to

indicate that he acted with due care and attention and was satisfied that

the imputation was true and all these can be judged only during trial. In

this context he relied upon the judgment of Sukra Mahto Vs. Basdeo

Kumar Mahto and Another reported in (1971) 1 SCC 885. Since all these

are questions of fact and matter of evidence, it cannot be adjudicated while

dealing with application under section 482 of the Code. In this context

reliance has also been placed upon judgment of Chaman Lal Vs. State of

Punjab reported in (1970) 1 SCC 590 and Jeffrey J. Diermeier & Another

Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2010) 6 SCC 243.

16. He further submits that the judgments relied by the petitioner are not

applicable in the present context and it is settled law that the ratio of a

decision has to be understood, regard being had to its context and factual

exposition. In this context also he relied upon judgment of Royal Medical

Trust and another Vs. Union of India and another reported in (2017)

16 SCC 605.

7

2025:CHC-AS:897
Decision

17. After going through the news report under the heading “Abhijukto

Krishanendu Narayan” it appears that the report pertains to a complaint

that has been lodged by the residents of ward no. 10 Imambari Lane Malda

English Bazar Municipality against the opposite party and his associates for

threating and resisting construction of 2nd floor roof at the house of the said

persons on a demand of Rs. 19,00,000/-. It further appears that in the

present case the opposite party/complainant, Krishnanendu Naryana alone

tendered initial deposition under section 200 of the Cr.P.C. In his initial

deposition he has also admitted that accused no. 4, 5, 6 and 7 (Present

petitinoers are accused no. 1 to 3) lodged a complaint at English Bazar P.S

that he demanded Rs. 19,00,000/- from them for giving them permission to

construct pakka roof. The petitioners herein also filed supplementary

affidavit annexing the written complaint that was lodged by Rehana Pervin,

Md. Motiur Rahaman and Md. Jakir Hossain Biswas dated 08.12.2016 and

18.12.2016 wherefrom it appears that the said persons lodged complaint to

the Executive Officer English Bazar Municipality and the I/C English Bazar

P.S., alleging inter alia that after obtaining building plan, when they were

about to start constution, the then chairman demanded Rs. 19,00,000/-

from them and threatened to cancel their mutation and plan and also

threatened to disconnect the water connection, if the payment be not made.

18. Therefore it is very much clear that the said news reporting has been

made on the basis of said complaint as has been made before the I/c

English Bazar P.S and the Executive Officer, English Bazar Municipality by

said residents of ward no. 10. Now in order to attract offence under section

8
2025:CHC-AS:897
499 of the IPC which is punishable under section 500, the following

ingredients are required to be satisfied :

(1) Making or publishing any imputation concerning any person;
(2) Such imputation must have been made by words either spoken or intended
to be read, or by signs, or by visible representations, and
(3) Such imputation must have been made with the intent to harm, or with
knowledge or belief that it will harm the reputation of the person
concerned.

To attract offence under section 501 of IPC, complainant is required to

establish

(1) That the news item published by the petitioners is defamatory.
(2) The petitioner knew or had reason to believe that the news item is
defamatory in character.

19. Form the aforesaid ingredients it is clear that the essential of the

offences alleged is that the imputation should have been made for

publication with the intention of harming or with the knowledge or with

reason to believe that the imputation will harm the reputation of such

person even knowing it to be defamatory. So the moot question is whether

the new article in question was published in good faith or not. It is quite

apparent that what the petitioners herein/accused persons have published

in its newspaper is the complaint that has been lodged by the other accused

persons before I/c English Bazar P.S and the Executive Officer, English

Bazar Municipality. The news report has only reported regarding the

aforesaid complaint filed against such public servant in relation to his acts

while discharging public duties. Therefore accused persons have reported of

an imputation which has already been reported in the nature of an

accusation by the other accused persons.

20. In Jawaharlal Darda and others Vs. Manoharrao Ganatrao

Kapsikar and another reported in (1998) 4 SCC 112 it was held, if the
9
2025:CHC-AS:897
news item was published about public conduct of public servant who are

entrusted for public good, believing the same to be true, it cannot be said

that the accused persons who published the news intended to harm the

reputation of the complainant. It was also held in that case, where the

newspaper published an accurate and true report of the preceding of the

assembly then it was published in good faith for public good.

21. Mr. Chatterjee learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

complainant/opposite party argued that while considering application under

section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the court is not supposed to consider the two

complaints dated 08.12.2016 and 18.12.2016, allegedly on the basis of

which the news item had been published, as it has no evidentiary value at

this stage and not a document of sterling quality and in this context he

relied upon State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta and

other (supra). Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Mr.

Ganguly contradicted the submission by referring the judgments of All

Cargo Movers (India) Private Limited and others Vs. Dinesh Badarmal

Jain and another reported in (2007) 14 SCC 776 and Haji Iqbal @ Bala

Through S.P.O.A Vs. State of Utter Pradesh and others reported in 2023

SCC OnLine SC 946 and contended that law has completely changed since

the judgment of Awadh Kishor Gupta (supra) and it is now well settled that

documents of un-impeachable character and sterling quality, annexed with

the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C can be considered to come to it’s

logical conclusion.

22. As I have already stated above that the complainant Krishnendu

Naryan in his initial deposition admitted that accused no. 4, 5, 6 and 7

10
2025:CHC-AS:897
lodged a complaint at English Bazar P.S alleging that he had demanded Rs.

19,00,000/- from them for raising pukka construction so, it must be said

that the aforesaid two complaint dated 08.12.2016 and 18.12.2016 are

documents of un-impeachable character and can certainly be considered

while dealing with a prayer made under section 482 Cr.P.C.

23. It is also well settled in view of Sanjay Upadhay case, reported in

AIR 2024 SC 811 that the news article in question if published in good

faith, in exercise of fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression

enshrined under article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India, it does not

attract ingredients of the offence punishable under section 500 of the IPC. In

the instant case it is also apparent that there was no mala fide on the part

of the publisher in publishing the news in view of the fact that the response

of the opposite party/complainant as well as response of the police and also

the response of the concerned family members of the family from whom the

money has been allegedly demanded by the opposite party has been

incorporated in the news. Since the version/response of all concerned

parties have been reported without having any expression of reporter’s own

view, the reporting appears to be a balanced reporting, which does not

attract offence under section 499 of the IPC, punishable either under section

500 or offence under 501 IPC.

24. I have already indicated above that before issuance of process under

section 204 of IPC, the complainant alone had given initial deposition

stating that due to publication of such false news his prestige has been

lowered down to the eyes of people of Malda and outside Malda and the

people are now questioning about his integrity. Exprnation 4 of Section 499

11
2025:CHC-AS:897
of IPC clearly states that no imputation is said to harm a person’s

reputation unless that imputation directly or indirectly in the estimation of

others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person. Therefore to

maintain a case under section 500 or 501 of the IPC, the complainant is

required to prima face show by producing evidence at the stage of initial

deposition under section 200 of the Code and to exhibit that in the

estimation of any such witness, his moral or intellectual character was

lowered.

25. In the instant case no witness from Malda or outside Malda or the

people who allegedly questioning about his integrity after the aforesaid

publication, has come forward while initial examination was done for

issuance of process under section 200 of Cr.P.C.

26. In the Judgments of Nisika properties of Pvt Ltd, 2013 SCC OnLine

Cal 14482, M/s Pataka Industries Pvt Ltd., 2013 SCC OnLine Cal

19696, Dipankar Bagchi, 2009 SCC Online Cal 1877 and Kalpana

Mazumdar 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 103, Co-ordinate Benches of this High

Court held that the inference of the complainant that due to such

publication/imputation, the reputation of the complainant has been lowered

down in the estimation of the public is of no use to make out an offence of

defamation, unless before the process issuing court, the concerned witness

is examined in who’s estimation the reputation of the complaint has been

lowered down due to such publication. Since the complainant has not

examined any such witness at the stage of initial deposition which can

reflect that his character has been lowered in the estimation of such witness

12
2025:CHC-AS:897
and since no one can be defamed in his own eyes, the instant proceeding is

hit by explanation 4 to section 499 of the IPC.

27. That apart it is well settled that though the exercise of fundamental

right guaranteed under Article 19 is available to every citizen but the

exercise of journalistic freedom lies at the core of speech and expression

protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court

held in Arnab Ranajan Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2020)

14 SCC 12 as follows :

38. Article 32 of the Constitution constitutes a recognition of the
constitutional duty entrusted to this Court to protect the fundamental rights
of citizens. The exercise of journalistic freedom lies at the core of speech
and expression protected by Article 19(1)(a). The petitioner is a media
journalist. The airing of views on television shows which he hosts is in the
exercise of his fundamental right to speech and expression under Article
19(1)(a). India’s freedoms will rest safe as long as journalists can speak
truth to power without being chilled by a threat of reprisal. The exercise of
that fundamental right is not absolute and is answerable to the legal
regime enacted with reference to the provisions of Article 19(2). But to allow
a journalist to be subjected to multiple complaints and to the pursuit of
remedies traversing multiple States and jurisdictions when faced with
successive FIRs and complaints bearing the same foundation has a stifling
effect on the exercise of that freedom. This will effectively destroy the
freedom of the citizen to know of the affairs of governance in the nation
and the right of the journalist to ensure an informed society. Our decisions
hold that the right of a journalist under Article 19(1)(a) is no higher than the
right of the citizen to speak and express. But we must as a society never
forget that one cannot exist without the other. Free citizens cannot exist
when the news media is chained to adhere to one position. Yuval Noah
Harari has put it succinctly in his recent book titled “21 Lessons for the
21st Century”: “Questions you cannot answer are usually far better for you
than answers you cannot question”.

28. Therefore the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech is not so

much for the benefit of the press as it is for the benefit of the public. The

freedom of speech include with its compass the right of all citizen to be read

and be informed as coated in Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) Pvt.

Ltd and others Vs. Union of India reported in (1985) 1 SCC 641.

13

2025:CHC-AS:897

29. In view of aforesaid discussion it is quite clear from the materials

available to this court that the complaint along with the initial deposition of

the complainant itself fails to make out any offence either under section 500

or 501 of the IPC and as such it does not attract any culpability to the

petitioner herein who are arrayed as accused no. 1, 2, 3 of the written

complaint.

30. The Magistrate concerned was so desperate in issuing the process

against the petitioners herein that he even ignored the mandatory provision

laid down in section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Form the

complaint itself, it is clear that the residence of accused no. 1 or 2 or 3 are

not within the jurisdiction of the concerned magistrate but he issued

process without making any enquiry about the allegation levelled against the

petitioner either by himself or by a making a direction for investigation to be

made by a police officer or any other competent person. Only perusing the

contents of complaint which does not constitute offence under section 500

or 501 IPC, he took cognizance and thereafter without knowing as to whose

estimation the complainant has been allegedly defamed, he adjudicated that

there are grounds to proceed against the petitioner herein, which is not at

all sustainable in the eye of law.

31. In view of above the impugned proceeding being complaint case no.

382C/2017 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda, is

hereby quashed, qua the petitioners herein namely Anirban Chattopadhyay,

Pradipta Biswas and Abhijit Saha. Accordingly present application being

C.R.R 2428 of 2017 stands allowed.

14

2025:CHC-AS:897
Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this Judgment, if applied for, be given

to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.

(DR. AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.)

15