Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Mr. Arnab Goswami & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 8 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
CRR 1187 of 2022
with
CRAN 4 of 2022
Mr. Arnab Goswami & Anr.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Mahesh Jettmalani, Sr. Adv.
(Virtual Mode),
Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Apalak Basu,
Mr. Saket Shukla,
Mr. Nazir Ahmed,
Mr. Zoeb Cuteriywala,
Ms. Smita Mukherjee,
Ms. Saheli Bose.
For the State : Mr. Kishore Dutta, ld. AG
Mr. Rudradipta Nandy, ld. APP
Ms. Sanjana Saha.
Hearing concluded on : 05.03.2025
Judgment on : 08.04.2025
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:
1. The present criminal revision has been preferred praying for quashing
of the impugned criminal proceeding being Phoolbagan P.S. Case No.
99/2020 dated 22nd April, 2020 under Section 153A/153-
2
B/500/504/120B of the Indian Penal Code and notices dated 19th
November, 2021 and 01 April, 2022, issued to the petitioner no. 1
under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. The petitioners‟ case in short is that the petitioner no. 1 is the Editor-
in-Chief of the Republic Media Network. It owns and operates the
Republic Media Network. The Network owns and operates news
channels in English (Republic TV), Hindi (R. Bharat) and Bangla (R.
Bangla) genres. The petitioner no. 2, media network is a news media
organization.
3. The FIR pertains to the news debate aired on Republic TV on 21st April,
2020 at about 9 P.M. in the show called “The Debate” (“Broadcast”) and
a comment made by a panelist (Mr. Subhojit Ghosh) during the
Broadcast. The Broadcast was aired live on Republic TV.
4. The petitioner no. 1 and Republic TV had condemned the comment
made by Mr. Subhojit Ghosh in the Broadcast and had promptly issued
a wide-reaching clarification on social media and assuaged the
concerns raised by a representative claiming to be from Bharatvarshiya
Marwari Samaj.
5. It is further stated that Mr. Subhojit Ghosh was also proactively and
immediately cut-off and interrupted by the petitioner no. 1 who was
hosting the Broadcast the moment the comment was made in the
broadcast. The inappropriate comment made by Mr. Ghosh was not in
any way endorsed by the petitioner no. 1 or by the Republic Media
Network. Mr. Ghosh was not put on air after the said comment was
3
made by him. In fact, not only did the petitioner no. 1 reprimand Mr.
Ghosh during the course of the live Broadcast but it is also part of the
record, and well documented in the recordings which are available on
YouTube, that various other panelists on the Broadcast had also called
out the most disdainful statement made by Mr. Ghosh.
6. The relevant extract from the broadcast is as follows:-
“Subhojit Ghosh : Arnab I have a simple question, I have a
simple question to the BJP person that the central team will
investigate the, the uhh black marketing of the dishonest
Marwaris in West Bengal?
Arnab Goswami : What? What do you mean by that? I mean
what kind of a comment is that? What kind of a comment is
that? One minute. One minute, One minute. Least expected
comment from you but anyway, Nalin Kholi. [emphasis
supplied]Subhojit Ghosh : Yes, the Marwaris (unclear) black-marketing of
masks at large.
Nalin Kohli : You are demeaning a whole community. Black-
marketing by Marwaris, oh my god you are making this a
community fight now. Would you say the same thing about
Bangladeshis who are coming into your state?
Subhojit Ghosh : The Marwaris are into black marketing in West
Bengal.
Nalin Kohli : Would you say that they are eating away the jobs
and eating away the resources of them?
Subhojit Ghosh : Yes
Nalin Kohli : Would you say the Rohingyas are being illegally
settled in ? Would you say the same for people who are being
hung on trees because they are supporters of BJP, they have
been brutalized.
Arnab Goswami : I tell you. I tell you. No no, that‟s not worth
responding to. Kanchan Gupta, no no no. One minute one
4munute, we will not go down that way, Subhojit. I don‟t think
that is even worth responding to. That is not worth responding
to. The question is. The question is. The question is… let‟s bring
some substance into the debate. [emphasis supplied]Subhojit Ghosh: The every black marketing person is a
Marwari.
Kanchan Gupta: I think it is a very bigoted hateful comment
that was just made on live tv, that person should either
apologies or be taken off air but that is your editorial decision.
Arnab, Swapan has made a point and that point needs
explanation.”
7. It is further stated by the petitioners that apart from and beyond
immediate reprimanding on the show by the petitioner no. 1,
separate, clear and immediate wide-reaching clarification on social
media was issued by Republic TV. Republic TV had issued the
clarification putting forth the full facts on social media and
condemning the comment made by Mr. Ghosh.
8. In the Tweet, Republic TV clearly stated:-
“Republic TV strongly condemns the comment made by a
panelist in the course of the debate on Bengal last night.
Attached here is the unedited clip with details of the facts
as they unfolded.”
9. An entire sequence of events and action against Mr. Ghosh was listed
and posted on the social media account of the Republic TV channel on
22nd April, 2020.
10. It is the further case of the petitioners that the panelists air their own
opinions that are neither endorsed by Republic TV nor the petitioner
no. 1. Given the nature and format of the debate shows, such as the
5
Broadcast, the panelists on the channel have differing opinions and
viewpoints and air their stand on the issue at hand. The channel
clarified that these comments were not endorsed and cannot be
ascribed to Republic Media Network, Republic TV, or petitioner no. 1.
The comment and views expressed by Mr. Subhojit Ghosh in the
Broadcast reflected his personal opinion and cannot be attributed to
petitioner no. 1 or the Republic Media Network in any manner
whatsoever.
11. It is further stated that the said broadcast was live and, as such,
beyond the control of the petitioners to predict in advance the
conduct of the accused Subhojit Ghosh. The petitioners also
condemned the conduct of Mr. Subhojit Ghosh to Mr. Man Mohan
Garodia, a representative of Rashhtriya Ahinsa Manch and Bharatiya
Marwari Samaj who in response to a e-mail sent by the petitioners
Republic TV, stated as follows:-
“…Thanks for your response. We have not send any
type of legal notices to you but only wanted to know
about the identity of this Mr. Subhojit Ghosh who
deliberately raised unwanted words about Marwari
Community in your TV Debate on 21st April, 2020.
The legal notice in question was issued by some advocate,
which reached to us through social media and we had
send the same to you for your knowledge and reference
purpose only. Please avoid to call such persons in
television debate in future who deliberately spread hatred
to divide the communities and if possible please telecast in
your news portal that your television and agency are not
against Marwari Community as uttered by Mr. Subhojit
Ghosh. This denial telecast will definitely be taken
by all Marwari Community in right spirit and image
6of your channel will improve in their eyes, mind and
heart. Please response. [emphasis supplied]”
12. It is the further case of the petitioners that the right forum for any such
complaint is the news broadcasters‟ federation. The News Broadcasters
Federation (NBF) is an independent self-regulating news broadcasting
association. It has been granted validation by the Union of India and is
a recognised body regulating the news media sector. Any complaint
regarding the content of a news broadcast or related to a news channel
should be directed to this self-regulatory body.
13. The petitioners further stated that they are willing to cooperate with the
investigation all along and also informed the police in response to the
notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. It is thus stated that
ingredients required to constitute the offence alleged are not present in
respect of the petitioners herein and, as such, the proceedings is liable
to be quashed.
14. The written complaint filed in the present case by one Mr. Man
Mohan Bagri of Manicktala Main Road, Kankurgachi reads as follows:-
“Yesterday i.e. 21st April, 2020, while watching the
evening news on Republic TV, I was shocked to note
that a certain member of the panel, namely
Subhojit Ghosh, hosted by the channel made
distasteful and offensive remarks against the Marwari
Community when he said “I have a simple question to
the BJP person, that the central team will investigate the
black marketing of the dishonest Marwaris in West
Bengal?” On national television, when the aforesaid
statement was made by the said panelist, the news
was being broadcast globally on the Republic TV news
channel.
7
The statement made by the panelist was
suggestive and pointed towards the people belonging to
the Marwari community in the State of West Bengal
being allegedly involved in the illegal act of “black
marketing”. The panelist made such nasty and
groundless statement against the Marwari
community with deliberate intention of defaming
and disparaging the goodwill and reputation of
Marwari community which is one of the most
prominent communities not only in the State of
West Bengal, but also in our country. The malicious
statement was published and broadcast on a national
television knowing full well that such statement does
not hold any truth and is incorrect, baseless and
unsubstantiated.
The statement was made by the accused
person and hosted by Republic TV with the
intention to promote enmity between the different
communities at this difficult time faced by the
country. Such act committed by the accused person is
prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between the
communities and people belonging to different walks of
life. The imputation made by the accused person is
also prejudicial to the idea of national integration
and is a threat to the social fabric.‖
15. The complainant then prayed for necessary action against the Republic
TV, the petitioners herein for the conduct of the said Subhojit Ghosh for
being provided with the platform to make such objectionable remarks
and also on the ground that such remarks were broadcasted and there
has been circulation of false and baseless statements against a
particular community and to promote enmity between different
communities.
8
16. Learned Advocate General has relied upon certain extracts from the
reply given by the petitioner no. 1 to the investigating agency in
response to the notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C.
17. The specific portion is reproduced herein:-
“Republic TV strongly condemns the comment made by a
panelist in course of the debate on Bengal last night. Attached
here is the unedited clip with details of the facts as they
unfolded.
Given the nature and format of the debate shows, such as the
Broadcast, the panelists on the channel have differing opinions
and viewpoints and air their stand on the issue at hand. The
channel clarifies that these comments are not endorsed
and cannot be ascribed to Republic Media Network,
Republic TV, or me. The comment and views expressed by Mr.
Subhojit Ghosh in the Broadcast reflected his personal
opinion and cannot be attributed to me or the Republic Media
Network in any manner.”
18. Both parties have filed their respective written notes along with the
judgments relied upon.
19. The petitioners in their written notes have relied upon the following
judgments:-
1. Manzar Sayeed Khan vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. with
Vinod Hansraj Goyal vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 5 SCC
1;
2. Patricia Mukhim vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors., (2021) 15
SCC 35;
9
3. Bilal Ahmed Kaloo vs. State of A.P. and State of A.P. vs.
Bilal Ahmed Kaloo, (1997) 7 SCC 431;
20. On the other hand the State has relied upon the following judgments:-
1. Rajarshi Sen vs. State & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Cal 3077;
2. Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation &
Anr., (2022) 10 SCC 51;
21. The offences alleged in this case are under Sections
153A/153B/500/504/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
22. Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code:-
―153A. Promoting enmity between different groups on
grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence,
language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to
maintenance of harmony.-(1) Whoever-
(a) by words, either spoken or writtten, or by signs or by
visible rep-resentations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to
promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence,
language, caste or community or any other ground
whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will
between different religious, racial, language or regional groups
or castes or communities, or
(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of
har-mony between different religious, racial, language or
regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs
or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity, or
(c) organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar
activity intending that the participants in such activity shall
use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it
to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be
trained to use criminal force or violence, or participates in such
activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or
violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such
10activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence,
against any religious, racial, lan-guage or regional group or
caste or community and such activity for any reason
whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a
feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial,
language or regional group or caste or community, shall be
punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years,
or with fine, or with both.”
23. The principle ingredient herein is to promote enmity or hatred
between two groups. In the present case there is no such ingredient as
no two groups are involved. So the question of promoting enmity does
not arise. The statement made in this case was a personal
opinion/view during a live telecast. It was made by a panelist
which did not prima facie have the approval of the petitioners to
make such statement.
24. As the statement was during a live show, it can be presumed that the
petitioners did not foresee such statement being made by a panelist.
25. There is nothing to show that there was any overact on the part of
the petitioners which led to the panelist make such statement. As such
there is no ingredients to show that the petitioners acted in a manner
which promotes enmity between different groups etc nor is there any
material to show that the petitioners had done any act which was
prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.
26. The Supreme Court in Shiv Prasad Semwal vs The State of
Uttarakhand & Ors., in Criminal Appeal No(s). ………… of 2024,
(arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3687 of 2020), decided on 19th
March, 2024, the Court held:-
11
“26. From a bare reading of the language of Section
153A IPC, it is clear that in order to constitute such
offence, the prosecution must come out with a case that
the words „spoken‟ or „written‟ attributed to the accused,
created enmity or bad blood between different groups on
the ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence,
language, etc., or that the acts so alleged were prejudicial
to the maintenance of harmony.
29. In the case of Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of
Maharashtra and Anr.1, this Court held that for
applying Section 153A IPC, the presence of two or
more groups or communities is essential, whereas in
the present case, no such groups or communities
were referred to in the news article.
30. The other substantive offence which has been applied
by the investigating agency is Section 504 IPC. The said
offence can be invoked when the insult of a person
provokes him to break public peace or to commit any other
offence. There is no such allegation in the FIR that owing to
the alleged offensive post attributable to the appellant, the
complainant was provoked to such an extent that he
could indulge in disturbing the public peace or
commit any other offence. Hence, the FIR lacks the
necessary ingredients of the said offence as well.
Since we have found that the foundational facts
essential for constituting the substantive offences
under Sections 153A and 504 IPC are not available
from the admitted allegations of prosecution, the
allegations qua the subsidiary offences
under Sections 34 and 120B IPC would also be non
est.‖
27. In the present case, the statement on the basis of which the present
case has been registered was made by another accused on a live show
and as such there is nothing on record to prima facie substantiate the
allegations under Section 153A of IPC against the petitioners herein as
nothing was done by them to prima facie make out a case under
Section 153A IPC as none of ingredients required to constitute the
offence under this Section could be attributed to the petitioners herein.
(Shiv Prasad Semwal vs The State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (Supra))
12
28. In Javed Ahmad Hajam vs State of Maharashtra & Anr., in
Criminal Appeal No. 886 of 2024, decided on 07 March, 2024, the
Supreme Court held:-
―Held: “Intention” as an essential ingredient of offence
u/s.153-A- Alleged objectionable words or expressions
used by the appellant cannot promote disharmony or
feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different
religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or
communities – WhatsApp status of the appellant had a
photograph of two barbed wires below which it was
mentioned “August 5- Black Day- Jammu & Kashmir” –
This was an expression of his individual view and
his reaction to the abrogation of Article 370 – It does
not reflect any intention to do something prohibited
u/s.153-A – At best, it was a protest, which is a part
of his freedom of speech and expression guaranteed
by Article 19(1)(a) – Describing the day the abrogation
happened as a “Black Day” was an expression of protest
and anguish – Further, the appellant had posted that
“Article 370 was abrogated, we are not happy”- He
intended to criticise the action of the abrogation of Article
370 – He had expressed unhappiness over the act of
abrogation – The aforesaid words do not refer to any
religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or
community – It was a simple protest against the decision
to abrogate Article 370 – If every criticism or protest of the
actions of the State is to be held as an offence u/s.153-A,
democracy, an essential feature of the Constitution of
India, will not survive – The right to dissent in a legitimate
and lawful manner is an integral part of the rights
guaranteed u/Article 19(1)(a) – Effect of the words used by
the appellant on his WhatsApp status will have to be
judged from the standards of reasonable women and men
– The test to be applied is not the effect of the words on
some individuals with weak minds or who see a danger in
every hostile point of view – The test is of the general
impact of the utterances on reasonable people who are
significant in numbers- Merely because a few individuals
may develop hatred or ill will, it will not be sufficient to
attract clause (a) of sub-sec.(1) of s.153-A– Also, the picture
containing “Chand” and below that the words “14th
August-Happy Independence Day Pakistan”, will not
attract clause (a) of sub-sec.(1) of s.153-A – Nothing wrong
with a citizen of India extending good wishes to the
citizens of Pakistan on 14th August, their Independence
13Day – It‟s a gesture of goodwill – It cannot be said that
such acts will tend to create disharmony or feelings of
enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious groups
– Clause (b) of sub-sec.(1) of s.153-A not attracted –
Impugned judgment and FIR, quashed. [Paras 10, 9, 11,
12, 14, 15]
Constitution of India – Articles 19, 21 – Right to
dissent, a part of the right to lead a dignified and
meaningful life guaranteed by Article 21 – Police to
be sensitised about the democratic values enshrined
in the Constitution:
Held: Right to dissent in a lawful manner must be
treated as a part of the right to lead a dignified and
meaningful life guaranteed by Article 21 – But the protest
or dissent must be within four corners of the modes
permissible in a democratic set-up – It is subject to
reasonable restrictions imposed in accordance with
clause (2) of Article 19 – In the present case, the
appellant did not at all cross the line – Now, the time
has come to enlighten and educate the police machinery on
the concept of freedom of speech and expression
guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the
extent of reasonable restraint on their free speech and
expression – They must be sensitised about the democratic
values enshrined in the Constitution. [Paras 10, 13]”
29. Section 153B of the Indian Penal Code:-
―153B. Imputations, assertions prejudicial to
national integration.-
(1) Whoever, by words either spoken or written or by
signs or by visible representations or otherwise,-
(a) makes or publishes any imputation that any class of
persons cannot, by reason of their being members of any
religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or
community, bear true faith and allegiance to the
Constitution of India as by law established or uphold the
sovereignty and integrity of India, or
(b) asserts, counsels, advises, propagates or publishes
that any class of persons shall, by reason of their being
members of any reli-gious, racial, language or regional
14group or caste or community, be denied or deprived of
their rights as citizens of India, or
(c) makes or publishes any assertion, counsel, plea or
appeal concerning the obligation of any class of persons,
by reason of their being members of any religious, racial,
language or regional group or caste or community, and
such assertion, counsel, plea or appeal causes or is likely
to cause disharmony or feelings of enmity or hatred or ill-
will between such members and other persons, shall be
punished with imprisonment which may extend to three
years, or with fine, or with both.
(2) Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section
(1) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in
the performance of religious worship or religious
ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which
may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.
Ingredients of offence.- The essential ingredients of the
offence under sec. 153B are as follows:-
(1) The accused read or spoke or made signs or
representations either visible or otherwise, or made or
published any imputation;
(2) Accused thereby intended that member of any
religious, racial or language or regional group, caste or
community cannot bear true faith and religion to the
citizens of India or to break the sovereignty and integrity
of India, or(3) Accused asserted that any class of persons shall by
reason of their being members of any religious, racial,
language or regional group or community be denied or
deprived of their rights as citizens of India;
4) Accused made or published any imputation;
(5) Such imputation was likely to cause disharmony or
actually caused disharmony;
(6) Accused committed any of the things either (1) at any
place of worship, or (ii) in any assembly in performance of
religious worship) or religious ceremony.”
15
30. In the present case, the petitioners herein did not make the alleged
comments.
31. The program was being broadcast “live”, so the question of any
“intention” to publish such statements cannot be attributed to the
petitioners herein.
32. There has been nothing which attributes the petitioners herein of
breaking the sovereignty and integrity of India.
33. Learned Advocate General has argued on placing his case that the
petitioners herein by subsequently expressing regret by enclosing
unedited clip of the telecast in dispute has published the said
imputation. Such imputation has caused disharmony and as such
there being a prima facie case made out against the petitioners herein,
they are liable to be prosecuted by facing trial.
34. To counter this, Mr. Jettmalani learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioners has argued that by enclosing an unedited clip of the telecast
along with the statement of condemning such expression of the
panelist during a live telecast is part of the process as without the
entire clip, it‟s not understood as to what is being condemned.
35. In reply, learned Advocate General has submitted that in the guise of
such acts, the petitioners have further published such imputation
causing disharmony and their intention being clear are liable to face
prosecution.
16
36. Freedom of the press or freedom of the media is the fundamental
principle that communication and expression through various media,
including printed and electronic media, especially published materials,
should be considered a right to be exercised freely. Such freedom
implies the absence of interference from an overreaching state.
37. Reasonable Restrictions (Article 19(2)):
While freedom of speech is a fundamental right, Article 19(2) allows for
certain restrictions in the interest of:
Sovereignty and integrity of India
Security of the State
Friendly relations with foreign states
Public order
Decency or morality
Contempt of court
Defamation
Incitement to an offence
Meaning of “Reasonable Restrictions”:
The phrase “reasonable restrictions” means that the limitations
imposed on the right to freedom of speech should not be arbitrary or
17excessive. A restriction must have a direct and proximate nexus with
the object it seeks to achieve, and must not be in excess of that object.
38. It appears that the controversial telecast in this case was condemned
by the petitioners, on such sites where the clip was already available.
The alleged controversial statement was a personal opinion of a panelist
relating to certain incidents during the Covid 19 pandemic. The
opinion was personal and that of an individual panelist as a member of
the public or as a representative of a certain organization herein being
an activist of Bengali Nationalist Group “Bangla Pokkho” being
aggrieved with the plight of the people during the severe pandemic
when it was as it’s peak and had just started causing havoc and
essential articles being not easily available were scarce and highly
priced.
39. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Pod caster Ranveer
Allahbadia, condemned the alleged remarks made by the Pod caster,
who then issued a public apology and deleted the „vulgar‟, „filthy‟,
„insulting‟ and „obscene video‟s‟.
40. The Supreme Court observed that “free speech” does not grant an
unfettered right to indulge in “obscenity”.
41. In the present case, the petitioners having distanced themselves from
the statements made by the panelist condemned such opinions
expressed on a public platform and have done so on every platform
(public) where it was available for viewing.
18
42. Admittedly the statements made by panelist clearly does not fall in the
category of the “Allahbadia” case. Further it is clear that the petitioners
neither encouraged such comments nor permitted the discussion to
continue on the alleged objectionable topic.
43. The petitioners have condemned the act of the panelist having
distanced themselves from him and his views. It is for the said panelist
to issue an apology if he desires to do so.
44. Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code lays down as follows:-
“Section 500. Punishment for defamation.– Whoever
defames another shall be punished with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years,
or with fine, or with both.
Scope.- The essential ingredient of the offence is that the
imputation should have been made or published with the
intention of harming or with the knowledge or with
reasons to believe that the imputation will harm the
reputation of such person.
Ingredients of offence.- The offence of defamation
consist of three essential ingredients, viz.:
(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.”
45. Section 504 of I.P.C., lays down:-
“504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke
breach of the peace.-Whoever intentionally insults, and
thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or
knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause
him to break the public peace, or to commit any other
offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
19description for a term which may extend to two years, or
with fine, or with both.
Ingredients of offence.- The essential ingredients of the
offence under sec. 504 are as follows:-
(1) The accused intentionally insulted someone;
(2) He thereby intended to give him provocation;
(3) He knew that it was likely that such provocation
would cause that person to commit a breach of the peace
or to commit any other offence.”
46. Section 500/504 of IPC relates to making or publishing any imputation
concerning any person or intentionally insulting and provoking such
person. In this case no particular person has been allegedly defamed,
intentionally insulted or provoked by the petitioners herein.
47. Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code:-
―120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.-(1)
Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an
offence punishable with death, im-prisonment for life or
rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or
upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in
this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be
punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such
offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than
a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as
aforesaid shall be pun-ished with imprisonment of either
description for a term not exceeding six months, or with
fine or with both.
Ingredients of offence. -The essential ingredients of the
offence under sec. 120B are as follows:
(1) An agreement between two or more persons to
commit an offence;
(2) In doing so the accused either did or caused to be
done:
(i) an illegal act, or
(ii) an act, which is not in itself illegal, by illegal means,
20(3) Such an act done or caused to be done was an offence
punishable under the Indian Penal Code;
(4) If the act so done was not an offence then an overt act
had been done by one or more parties to such agreement
in pursuance thereof.”
48. There is no prima facie material to show that there was an agreement
between the petitioners and the (accused) panelist in this case. The
foundational facts essential for constituting the substantive offences as
alleged are not available from the admitted allegations of prosecution.
“The allegations qua the subsidiary offences under Sections
34 and 120B IPC would also be non est.” (Shiv Prasad Semwal vs The
State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (Supra))
49. Thus the ingredients required to constitute the offences alleged against
the petitioners not having been prima facie made out, permitting the
proceedings to continue again the petitioners will be an abuse of the
process of law and thus the proceeding is liable to be quashed in
respect of the petitioners herein.
50. CRR 1187 of 2022 is allowed.
51. The proceeding in Phoolbagan P.S. Case No. 99/2020 dated 22nd April,
2020 under Section 153A/153-B/500/504/120B of the Indian Penal
Code are hereby quashed along with all notices therein under the
Cr.P.C. in respect of the petitioners herein, being Arnab Goswami
and ARG Outlier Media Private Limited.
52. All connected applications, if any, stands disposed of.
53. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
21
54. Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary
compliance.
55. Urgent certified website copy of this judgment, if applied for, be
supplied expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal
formalities.
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)
[ad_1]
Source link