Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Professor Bidyut Chakraborty And Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 30 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
C.R.R. 2599 of 2023
Professor Bidyut Chakraborty and Ors.
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajdeep Mazumder, Ld. Sr. Adv.
Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Pritam Roy, Adv.
Ms. Sagnika Banerjee, Adv.
Ms. Aishwarya Bazaz, Adv.
For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Subhamoy Bhattacharya, Adv.
Mr. Shankar Mukherjee, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Sandip Chakraborty, Adv.
Heard on : 26.02.2025
Judgment on : 30.04.2025
2
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:
1. This instant Criminal Revisional application has been filed
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC') by the three petitioners praying
for quashing of the proceedings being Shantiniketan Police Station
Case No. 89/2023 dated 05.07.2023 under Section 500 of the
Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3(1)(r)(u)(p)(s) of the
Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 now pending before the Learned Additional District Judge, 1st
Court, Suri, Birbhum.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. The background facts, leading to filing of this Criminal
Revisional application, are as under: –
2a. Petitioner no. 1 was the Vice-Chancellor, Visva Bharati
University (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said University’) on the
date of lodging FIR. He was an acclaimed academic who has been
appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of the said University by the
Hon’ble President of India in terms of the “Visva Bharati Act,
1951“.
2b. The Petitioner no. 2 is in-charge of Public Relation Officer
at the said University as well as is an Associate Professor at the
3said University and petitioner no. 3 is holding the post of the
Deputy Registrar at the said University. The petitioners have
blemish free standing in the society which was/is attempted to
being malevolently tarnished at the behest of the opposite party no.
2
2c. A written complaint was lodged by the opposite party no. 2
against the petitioners herein alleging, inter alia, as under: –
1. On 16.01.2023, an application for the higher
post of Controller of Examination at the Central
University of Odisha was forwarded by Visva-
Bharati with a no-objection letter dated
30.01.2023.
2. Opposite party no. 2 was selected for the
said post and then submitted a release request
on 24.02.2023 to the Registrar (Acting) but
received no response despite several reminders.
3. The Registrar (Acting), under Vice-Chancellor
Prof. Bidyut Chakrabarty’s instructions, issued
letters on 28.03.2023, 31.03.2023, and
18.04.2023 containing baseless allegations,
which were refuted by the opposite party no. 2 in
replies on 06.04.2023, 12.04.2023, and
427.04.2023. The University’s failure to dispute
the refutations implies acceptance.
4. The letters from the University appear to be
retaliatory, based on discriminatory and
malicious intent against SC/ST communities, as
opposite party no. 2 belongs to such communities.
5. On 21.05.2023, a complaint was filed with
the National Commission for Scheduled Castes
regarding discrimination and harassment by the
Visva-Bharati administration.
6. On 14.06.2023, a Press Release issued by
the In-charge PRO, at the behest of Prof. Bidyut
Chakrabarty, falsely linked the opposite party no.
2 to financial defalcation, a claim not supported
by the audit report.
7. The Press Release contained false
allegations not substantiated by the Inspection
Report, aimed at justifying the unlawful
hindrance in his release, driven by discriminatory
motives.
8. On 26.06.2023, during a meeting, Prof.
Bidyut Chakrabarty verbally abused the opposite
5party no. 2 for his complaint to the National
Commission, identified officers from reserved
categories in derogatory terms, and barred them
from his office and phone contact.
2d. On the basis of aforesaid written complaint, a
Shantiniketan Police Station Case No. 89/2023 dated 05.07.2023
under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections
3(1)(r)(u)(p)(s) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been registered against the
petitioners herein and initiated investigation.
2e. Whereas, the contention of the petitioners is that the
written complaint was lodged and registered on 05.07.2023
although the last date of incident mentioned in the written
complaint is 26.06.2023 with no satisfactory explanation for the
significant delay. As such, whatever allegations made against the
petitioners are afterthought to ensure the false implication of the
petitioners as well as for the sole purpose of shielding himself in an
illegal manner to prevent the actual state of affairs to transpire
with regard to the financial irregularity being committed by the
opposite party no. 2.
2f. A CAG report highlights the mode, manner and extent of
financial irregularity committed by the opposite party no. 2.
6
Notably, as the individual retained lien to his original post as
Accounts Officer at Visva Bharati while simultaneously holding the
post of Finance Officer at IGN Tribal University, Amarkantak,
Madhya Pradesh where he was eventually suspended for financial
misconduct.
2g. The Ministry of Human Resource Development issued a
direction to the former Vice-Chancellor, Visva Bharati not to allow
the opposite party no. 2 to rejoin Visva Bharati without obtaining
vigilance clearance from IGN Tribal University. Additionally, the
opposite party no. 2 was erroneously designated as Joint Registrar
with high grade pay of Rs. 8,700/- after completion of five years as
Accounts Officer which is a promotional scheme applicable only for
Deputy Registrar.
2h. Subsequently, the opposite party no. 2 reverted back to
his original post of Accounts Officer with grade pay of Rs. 7,600/-.
It is concerning that the opposite party no. 2 withdrew an arrear of
Rs. 5 Lakhs for the post of Joint Registrar at a higher grade pay of
Rs. 8,700/-. Multiple correspondences have been exchanged
between the parties regarding the issues.
2i. The opposite party no. 2, on the self-same cause of action,
also informed the National Commission for Schedule Caste and the
7
said University also participated at the said proceeding.
Furthermore, in the light of various false reports published in
various local media in respect of the facts of the instant case, the
said University is compelled to clarify its stand through a press
release.
2j. It is further contention of the petitioners that the FIR filed
against them is riddle with contradictions, lacks faucal basis, and
is fundamentally flawed. The allegations are unfounded, baseless
and fabricated as the opposite party no. 2 has failed to establish
any grounds for criminal proceedings. Such baseless and frivolous
FIR and charge sheet thereof are needed to be quashed at the
earliest to prevent gross abuse of process of law. Hence, this
application.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
3. Mr. Mazumder, learned senior counsel along with others
representing the petitioners, argued that the allegations made by
the opposite party no. 2 do not fulfil the required elements for
offences under Sections 500/120B/34 of the IPC and Section
3(1)(r)(p)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The
complaint fails to specify the offences committed by the petitioners
or their individual roles, and thus, lacks the necessary particulars
8
to sustain the charges. This case exemplifies a clear attempt to
initiate proceedings with the sole purpose of tarnishing the
petitioners’ reputation and harassing them, revealing the mala fide
intentions of the opposite party no. 2. Therefore, both the FIR and
the charge sheet should be quashed, as they are based on frivolous
and baseless allegations, to prevent the petitioners from suffering
unjust harm.
3a. The petitioners complied with the notice under Section
41A of the CrPC issued during the investigation and were not
arrested due to the protections granted by this Court, which were
extended to them from time to time.
3b. It was further submitted that the written complaint was
lodged with a significant delay. The complaint indicated the last
incident occurred on 26.06.2023, yet the FIR was registered on
05.07.2023, and the delay has not been satisfactorily explained.
This unexplained delay renders the proceedings vitiated, as it fails
to meet the necessary legal requirements for the timely institution
of criminal proceedings.
3c. The opposite party no. 2 invoked provisions of a stringent
statute, which is evident from his attempt to use them as a tool for
harassing the petitioners. This clearly demonstrates his personal
9
vendetta and malicious intent in initiating a false case against the
petitioners.
3d. The opposite party no. 2 was involved in financial
irregularities at Visva-Bharati University. A complaint was filed in
August 2022, and the university issued a notice in March 2023.
The opposite party no. 2 contested the claims, but the university
clarified an overpayment issue. Disciplinary proceedings were
initiated, leading to a charge sheet and the revocation of his
release order. His denial of the NOC for the Central University of
Odisha appointment was directly linked to these irregularities.
This sequence shows his actions were retaliatory and intended to
harm the petitioners.
3e. Financial irregularities were also discovered in relation to
three other individuals–Gouranga Dutta, Progalanka Bhikku, and
Amit Sengupta. An Enquiry Committee investigated their
involvement and submitted an adverse report. Despite their direct
role in the misconduct, these individuals have been included as
witnesses in the current case, raising serious concerns about the
integrity of their testimonies. Their involvement as witnesses,
despite being implicated in the irregularities, suggests a
coordinated attempt to intimidate and harass the petitioners,
10
underscoring their personal interests in supporting the opposite
party no. 2.
3f. It was further added that another false and frivolous case
was instituted against the petitioner no. 1 being Santiniketan
Police Station Case No. 112 of 2020 dated August 01, 2020, under
Sections 341/323/325/392/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860. Being aggrieved from the initiation of such mala fide
proceedings, the petitioner no. 1 had approached the Hon’ble High
Court at Calcutta by filing Criminal Revisional application being
CRR 1338 of 2020. The matter was taken up for hearing several
times and finally, vide order dated 05.03.2024, the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court observed as follows:
“Accordingly, as none of the ingredients required to
constitute the offences alleged are even prima facie
present, permitting the proceedings to continue
would clearly amount to an abuse of the process of
the Court.
The materials on record herein clearly do not make
out a prima facie case under Sections
341/323/325/392/506/34 of the Indian Penal
Code against the accused/petitioner as alleged
and there are no materials in this case for
proceeding against the accused/petitioner towards
trial and this is a fit case where the inherent power
of the court should be exercised.”
11
3g. The complaint filed by the opposite party no. 2 is devoid
of merits and does not meet the essential conditions required to
prosecute a person under Sections 500/1208/34 of the Indian
Penal Code read with 3(1)(r)(p)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, 1989 as the petitioner merely stated
the petitioners committed offence as alleged. The mala-fide and
malicious intent of the opposite party no. 2 is clearly reflected from
the mere perusal of the mode and manner in which the instant
case was malevolently given a shape and colour of criminal
proceedings.
3h. To bolster his contentions learned senior counsel has
placed reliance of the several judgments as follows:
i. Swaran Singh & Ors. Vs. State through Standing Counsel & Ors.1;
iv. Salib alias Shalu alias Salim Vs. State of UP and Ors.4;
v. Haji Iqbal alias Bala through S.P.O.A. Vs. State of UP and Ors.5;
1
(2008) 8 SCC 435;
2
AIR 1960 SC 866;
3
1992 Supp(1) SCC 335;
4
2023 SCC OnLine SC 947;
5
2023 SCC OnLine SC 948;
12
vi. Abhishek Vs. State of MP6;
vii. Rajiv Thapar & Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor7;
viii. Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr.8;
ix. Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs. The State of UP & Anr.9;
x. Ravinder Singh Vs. Sukhbir Singh and Ors.10.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 2:
4. The petitioners’ request for quashing the proceedings is
opposed, as the allegations made against Opposite Party No. 2 are
frivolous, stemming from a personal grudge of Petitioner No. 1.
Despite applying for the post of Controller of Examination at the
Central University of Odisha on 16.01.2023, his application was
forwarded with no-objection by Visva-Bharati, confirming no
disciplinary proceedings against him. He was selected for the post,
which is a statutory position higher than Joint Registrar, with a
tenure of five years or until age 62. He requested a lien on his
current post for two years, but was denied due to false allegations
of financial irregularities, which he denies.
6
2023 LiveLaw (SC) 731;
7
2013 (3) SCC 330;
8
(2020) 10 SCC 710;
9
2023 SCC OnLine SC 628;
10
JT 2013 (1) SC 515.
13
4a. Opposite Party No. 2 made repeated requests for release
with lien, but the Registrar (Acting) did not respond, instead
issuing false allegations against him on 28/31.03.2023,
31.03.2023, and 18.04.2023, which were unrelated to his
application for release.
4b. These baseless allegations were retaliatory and
discriminatory due to Opposite Party No. 2’s SC status, leading
him to lodge a complaint with the National Commission for
Scheduled Castes regarding discrimination, harassment, and
denial of career opportunities.
4c. Following this, the National Commission issued summons
to the university administration, leading to a hearing on
12.06.2023 as the matter was subjudiced before the National
Commission. In response, the university issued a press release on
14.06.2023, maligning Opposite Party No. 2 with false claims of
financial defalcation to undermine his career progression, insult
and humiliation before the general public.
4d. The allegations of financial defalcation were false, and the
real motive behind the press release was to harm Opposite Party
No. 2’s career due to his SC status. The National Commission, in
14
its order dated 20.06.2023, directed the university to release him
with lien, confirming no wrongdoing on his part.
4e. On 26.06.2023, during a meeting, the Vice Chancellor of
Visva-Bharati publicly humiliated Opposite Party No. 2 and other
officers from reserved categories, making derogatory remarks and
restricting their communication with him either in office or in
phone, which caused irreparable damage to his reputation.
4f. These actions were malicious, resulting in a violation of
the SC and ST Act, and caused significant personal and
professional harm to Opposite Party No. 2.
4g. Despite these actions, the investigation has gathered
sufficient prima facie evidence against the petitioners and
established prima facie case under Section 500 of the Indian Penal
Code read with Sections 3(1)(r)(p)(s) of the Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and,
therefore, a charge being charge sheet No. 101/2023 dated
29.08.2023 under Sections 500/120B/34 IPC read with Section
3(1)(r)(p)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA)
Act, 1989 was filed. Therefore, the petitioners’ application seeking
for quashing of the proceedings should be dismissed.
15
4h. Learned counsel also has placed reliance of the same
judgments referred by the petitioners to support of his contention
that the petitioners intentionally insults with intent to humiliate a
member of a schedule caste in a place within public view. Those
judgments are as follows:-
i. Swaran Singh & Ors. Vs. State through Standing Counsel &
Ors.11;
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE STATE:
5. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State argued
and supported the submission made on behalf of the opposite
party no. 2. Moreover, in course of investigation sufficient
materials were found and collected against the Petitioners herein.
It has been established prima facie case against the petitioners for
commission of offence alleged by the Opposite party no.2.
Therefore, application deserved to be dismissed and the proceeding
is allowed to be continued to uncover the actual truth.
11
(2008) 8 SCC 435;
12
AIR 1960 SC 866;
13
1992 Supp(1) SCC 335;
16
DISCUSSIONS AND ANALYSIS BY THIS COURT:
6. Heard the arguments advanced by the rival parties and
submissions made therein, this Court finds some important
questions arise for consideration are as under: –
1. Whether press release by the accused
persons damaged the opposite party no. 2’s
career, future prospect, his service (career
progression), financial damage, damage to his
reputation, mental injury, agony and defamed
etc. and thereby committed offence punishable
u/s 500/120B/34 of the IPC?
2. Whether calling the opposite party no. 2
and his colleagues that they are belongs to
reserved categories by saying ‘you are SC’, ‘you
are OBC’, “you are ST’ etc and further petitioner
no. 1 ordered that no SC, ST or OBC Categories
officers would be allowed to enter inside his
office chamber in future and those categories
officers would not make any mobile call to him
constitute prima facie case under Section
173(1)(r)(p)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, 1989?
3. Whether allegations made against the
petitioners do not constitute offence or fulfilled
the ingredient of the alleged offences and
thereby liable to be quashed to prevent from
abuse of process of law and/or to secure ends
of justice?
7. Before dealing/entering into the arguments advanced by
the parties and for proper adjudication of this case, it would be
appropriate and convenience to refer the important
sections/provisions as follows:
Section 500 of IPC reads as under: –
“S. 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.
Section 499 of IPC reads as under: –
S. 499. Defamation- Whoever, by words, either
spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by
visible representations, makes or publishes any
18imputation concerning any person intending to harm,
or knowing or having reason to believe that such
imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is
said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to
defame that person.
Explanation 1. –It may amount to defamation to
impute anything to a deceased person, if the
imputation would harm the reputation of that person
if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of
his family or other near relatives.
Explanation 2. –It may amount to defamation to
make an imputation concerning a company or an
association or collection of persons as such.
Explanation 3. –An imputation in the form of an
alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to
defamation.
Explanation 4. –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, or
lowers the character of that person in respect of his
caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that
person, or causes it to be believed that the body of
that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state
generally considered as disgraceful.
First Exception. –Imputation of truth which
public good requires to be made or published. —
19
It is not defamation to impute anything which is true
concerning any person, if it be for the public good that
the imputation should be made or published. Whether
or not it is for the public good is a question of fact.
Second Exception. –Public conduct of public
servants. –It is not defamation to express in good
faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of
a public servant in the discharge of his public
functions, or respecting his character, so far as his
character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Third Exception. –Conduct of any person touching
any public question. –It is not defamation to
express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting
the conduct of any person touching any public
question, and respecting his character, so far as his
character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Fourth Exception. –Publication of reports of
proceedings of courts. –It is not defamation to
publish substantially true report of the proceedings of
a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such
proceedings.
Explanation. –A Justice of the Peace or other officer
holding an enquiry in open Court preliminary to a trial
in a Court of Justice, is a Court within the meaning of
the above section.
20
Fifth Exception. –Merits of case decided in Court
or conduct of witnesses and others concerned. —
It is not defamation to express in good faith any
opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case,
civil or criminal, which has been decided by a Court of
Justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as a
party, witness or agent, in any such case, or
respecting the character of such person, as far as his
character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Sixth Exception. –Merits of public performance. —
It is not defamation to express in good faith any
opinion respecting the merits of any performance
which its author has submitted to the judgment of the
public, or respecting the character of the author so far
as his character appears in such performance, and no
further.
Explanation. –A performance may be submitted to
the judgment of the public expressly or by acts on the
part of the author which imply such submission to the
judgment of the public.
Seventh Exception. –Censure passed in good faith
by person having lawful authority over another.
–It is not defamation in a person having over another
any authority, either conferred by law or arising out
of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in
21good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in
matters to which such lawful authority relates.
Eighth Exception. –Accusation preferred in good
faith to authorised person. –It is not defamation
to prefer in good faith an accusation against any
person to any of those who have lawful authority over
that person with respect to the subject-matter of
accusation.
Ninth Exception. –Imputation made in good faith
by person for protection of his or other’s
interests. –It is not defamation to make an
imputation on the character of another provided that
the imputation be made in good faith for the protection
of the interests of the person making it, or of any
other person, or for the public good.
Tenth Exception. –Caution intended for good of
person to whom conveyed or for public good.–It
is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to
one person against another, provided that such
caution be intended for the good of the person to
whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that
person is interested, or for the public good.”
22
Section 120B of IPC reads as under: –
“120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy. –(1)
Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit
an offence punishable with death, imprisonment 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 punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term not
exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.”
Section 34 of IPC reads as under: –
“S. 34. Acts done by several persons in
furtherance of common intention. –When a
criminal act is done by several persons, in
furtherance of the common intention of all, each of
such persons is liable for that act in the same manner
as if it were done by him alone.”
23
Section 3(1)(r)(p)(s) of Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 reads as
under: –
“3. Punishments for offences atrocities. — 3(1)
Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste
or a Scheduled Tribe, —
(p) institutes false, malicious or vexatious suit or criminal
or other legal proceedings against a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe;
(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe in any place within public view;
(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public
view;”
8. Upon bare perusal of aforesaid provisions, it reveals Section
499 of the Indian Penal Code defines the term ‘Defamation’. The
punishment for Defamation has been laid in Section 500 of Indian
Penal Code. In order to make out an offence punishable under
Section 500 of the IPC, defamation must be proved by showing that
a person through words either spoken or intended to be read or by
signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any
24
imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing
or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the
reputation of that person is said to defame subject to some
exception mentioned in Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.
9. In the present case, it was an admitted fact that a complaint
was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 before the National
Commission for Scheduled Castes alleging interalia, for his
discrimination, harassment and denying of opportunity of working
on higher position by the Visva-Bharati administration under the
leadership of Prof. Bidyut Chakrabarty, Vice-chancellor, Visva-
Bharati, in collusion with other officers.
10. The allegations against the Petitioner no. 1 and the Visva-
Bharati administration were under inquiry and investigation by the
National Commission of Scheduled castes.
11. On the basis of said complaint, the National Commission
for Scheduled Castes issued summons to the Secretary, Ministry of
Education, Govt. of India, Prof. Bidyut Chakrabarty, Vice-
Chancellor, Visva-Bharati, and the Registrar (Acting), Visva Bharati
asking them for personal appearance on 09.06.2023 at the
Commission’s Head Quarters at New Delhi. The hearing was taken
place on 12.06.2023 at the Commission’s Head Quarters at New
25
Delhi. All of them as well as the opposite party no. 2 attended the
hearing. Due to hearing fixed by National Commission’s Head
Quarters at New Delhi, on 14.06.2023 some local newspaper
published news on summoning of Prof. Bidyut Chakraborty, Vice
Chancellor. The said facts of complaining and hearing date fixed
are not denied by the parties.
12. On the same date i.e. on 14.06.2023 in the afternoon, to
counter the above-mentioned news items, Dr. Mahua Banerjee, In-
charge, PRO, issued a Press Release and reason best known to
them. They also shared and circulated the press release in a
WhatsApp group of press reporters.
13. The press release contained the name and designation of the
opposite party no. 2 and mentioned him as complainant before the
National Commission for Scheduled Castes and it is fact that the
Press Release also indicated certain Audit objections which came
in the inspection report. The press release further stated that,
‘Since the objections involved financial defalcation, the university is
extra-careful given university’s ignominious record in regard to
financial irregularities but not to stop one of employees’ career
progression as is alleged in the complaint by Mr. Prashant Meshram.
The readers’ attention is drawn to the Audit objection in the
Inspection Report to show why the decision was taken in regard to
26
Mr. Prashant Meshram although he was formally released with the
note that the nature of leave – lien or deputation will be intimated to
him immediately as it is decided by the university (University order
of 21.04 and 15.05)’.
14. According to the contention of the accused/petitioners,
the University issued press release only to clarify the stands of the
university and not to insult, humiliate and harm the opposite party
no. 2’s reputation. However, this court unable to convince with the
contention of the petitioners. The press release on guise of audit
report towards financial irregularities was not at all necessary.
Financial irregularities, whatsoever, are the internal matter of the
university. Opposite party no.2 has denied the allegations. All
these matters or disputes were between the Opposite Party No.2
and the University and those internal issues should not have been
published without final conclusions. The issuance of the press
release appears to have been driven by a malicious intent only to
defame and discredit opposite party no. 2 by explicitly naming him
and referring to the position he held, while also citing the
university’s decisions–all with prima facie the objective of
tarnishing his reputation. Such actions were undertaken with full
knowledge or at the very least with sufficient reason to believe, that
these imputations would cause reputational harm. Any allegations
27
pertaining to financial irregularities are currently sub judice and
ought to be adjudicated exclusively by the competent authority
upon a thorough examination of the evidence and material placed
before it, rather than being prematurely and prejudicially disclosed
entire facts through public statements.
15. In addition, what prompted the University to issue the
press release when the matter is pending before the National
Commission for Scheduled Castes with regards to allegation of
discrimination, harassment and denying of opportunity of working
on higher position by the Visva-Bharati administration under the
leadership of Prof. Bidyut Chakrabarty, Vice-chancellor, Visva-
Bharati, in collusion with other officers. Allegation of financial
defalcation naming the Opposite party No.2 in general public
without any final conclusion, prima facie it appears that it is the
act of Defamation. Moreover, it was not essential to bring those
facts in public domain because the matter was/is under
consideration of the authority or authorities.
16. Some other allegations are alleged against the opposite
party no. 2 but those disputes or allegations are within the scope
of inquiry by the University.
28
17. So far as the allegations against the Petitioners/accused
persons for commission of offence under Sections 3(1)(r)(p)(s) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, 1989 are
concerned, this Court finds the opposite party no. 2 alleged that a
meeting held on 26.06.2023 at 11.30 am at the Central Conference
Hall of the said University. All the Joint Registrars, Deputy
Registrars, Assistant Registrars and Other senior officers of the
University including opposite party no. 2 were invited.
1) In course of meeting, the officers attending the meeting
experienced worst ever humiliation in their service tenure
at Visva-Bharati.
2) Prof. Bidyut Chakrabarty first abused the opposite
party no. 2 for filing a complaint to the National
Commission for Scheduled Castes and uttered abusive
remarks, on his protest. He did not allow him to speak on
his abuses.
3) He identified all the officers belonging to reserved
categories by saying ‘you are SC’, ‘you are OBC’, “you are
ST’ etc. and then directed his Confidential Secretary not
to allow any of the officers of these categories in his
office.
29
4) He also instructed the officers of the reserved
categories not to call him on phone”.
18. In course of investigation, the Investigating officer
recorded statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the
CrPC. The witnesses on similar gamut stated that the Petitioner
no. 1 abused the opposite party no. 2 openly by mentioning his
caste. He further humiliated opposite party no. 2 by mentioning his
caste repeatedly and did not give any scope to speak anything to
him even repeated request. Moreover, petitioner no. 1 ordered that
no SC, ST or OBC Categories officers would be allowed to enter
inside his office chamber in future and those categories officers
would not make any mobile call to him. The opposite party no. 2
got mental pain, humiliation, disrespect and insult due to such
abuse and misconduct caused by the petitioner no. 1 in presence
of other officers.
19. A Statement was also recorded under Section 164 of the
CrPC of one vital witness, who was present in the meeting. He
stated in his statement as under:
“On 26th June, 2023 a meeting was called for
discussing of releasing of DR. Prashant Meshram,
opposite party no. 2 for joining the higher post of
Controller of Examinations in Central University of
30Odisha. A few days before the meeting, Petitioners
and few others of the University were summoned by
the Schedule Caste commission, where the University
was directed to release Dr. Meshram within one
week. Petitioner no.1 was upset regarding that matter
and strongly criticized the Opposite Party no. 2 for
taking the issue to the Schedule Caste commission,
when Opposite party no. 2 tried to clarify himself, he
was not allowed to do so for at least two occasions.
Officers’ belongings to reserve categories were asked
not to visit the Petitioner no.1 Vice-Chancellor and
also not to call him on phone. They were advised to
call or contact the confidential Secretary to the Vice-
Chancellor, if needed. As such Opposite party no.2
was visibly hurt by and upset due to such happening
in the meeting”.
20. Upon careful perusal of both the statements recorded under
Sections 161 and 164 of CrPC, it reveals the Petitioner no. 1
abused the opposite party no. 2 openly by mentioning his caste. He
further humiliated opposite party no. 2 by mentioning his caste
repeatedly and did not give any scope to speak anything to him
even repeated request. Moreover, petitioner no. 1 ordered that no
SC, ST or OBC Categories officers would be allowed to enter in
future inside his office chamber and those categories officers would
not make any mobile call to him. Though calling a person belongs
31
to SC, ST or OBC may not be an offence but it would prima facie
appears that the ingredients are fulfilled to constitute offence
under section 3(1)(r)(p)(s) of the schedule castes and scheduled
tribe (POA) Act, 1989, when petitioner no. 1 ordered that no SC, ST
or OBC Categories officers would be allowed to enter inside his
office chamber in future and those categories officers would not
make any mobile call to him in presence of other officers, More so,
the place where meeting held was also public place and it was
within the view of public as place was owned by the Government
and not by a private persons or private bodies. The aforesaid view
taken by this Court in view of the proposition as laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh (supra) wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held a public place would ordinarily mean
a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the
municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an
instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private
bodies.
21. Utterance a person’s belonging SC, ST or OBC Categories
officers would not be allowed inside his office chamber and those
categories officers would not make any mobile call to him from the
date of meeting in the Central Conference Hall by the petitioner no.
1 being administrative and academic head in presence of other
32
Registrars and other officers really prima facie constitute offence
under Section 3(1)(r)(p)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (POA) Act, 1989 therefore, petitioners are requiring to face
the trial. Trial is necessary to uncover the truth.
22. In Hitesh Verma V. State of Uttakhand and Another14,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Paragraphs Nos. 12, 13 and 14
as under: –
12. The basic ingredients of the offence under
Section 3(1)(r) of the Act can be classified as “(1)
intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe and (2) in any place within public
view”.
13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act
would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and
intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or
intimidations to a person will not be an offence under
the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on
account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve
the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number
of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would
be made out when a member of the vulnerable section14
(2020) 10 SCC 710
33of the society is subjected to indignities, humiliations
and harassment. The assertion of title over the land
by either of the parties is not due to either the
indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen
has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with
law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family members
have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that
Respondent 2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil
court, then the parties are availing their remedies in
accordance with the procedure established by law.
Such action is not for the reason that Respondent 2 is
a member of Scheduled Caste.
14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult
or intimidation in “any place within public view”.
What is to be regarded as “place in public view” had
come up for consideration before this Court in the
judgment reported as Swaran Singh v. State [Swaran
Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri)
527] . The Court had drawn distinction between the
expression “public place” and “in any place within
public view”. It was held that if an offence is
committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside
a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from
the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the
lawn would certainly be a place within the public
view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a
building, but some members of the public are there
(not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be
an offence since it is not in the public view (sic) [Ed. :
This sentence appears to be contrary to what is
34stated below in the extract from Swaran Singh, (2008)
8 SCC 435, at p. 736d-e, and in the application of this
principle in para 15, below:
“Also, even if the remark is made inside a building,
but some members of the public are there (not merely
relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence
since it is in the public view.”].
The Court held as under : (SCC pp. 443-44, para
28)
“28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod
Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by Appellants
2 and 3 (by calling him a “chamar”) when he stood
near the car which was parked at the gate of the
premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place
within public view, since the gate of a house is
certainly a place within public view. It could have
been a different matter had the alleged offence been
committed inside a building, and also was not in the
public view. However, if the offence is committed
outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house,
and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road
or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would
certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even
if the remark is made inside a building, but some
members of the public are there (not merely relatives
or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is
in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the
expression “place within public view” with the
expression “public place”. A place can be a private
35place but yet within the public view. On the other
hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place
which is owned or leased by the Government or the
municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an
instrumentality of the State, and not by private
persons or private bodies.”
(emphasis in original)
23. In Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. The State of Uttar
Pradesh & Anr.15, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paragraph
no. 18 as under: –
“18. … The legislative intent seems to be clear that
every insult or intimidation for humiliation to a person
would not amount to an offence under Section 3(1)(x)
of the SC/ST Act unless, of course, such insult or
intimidation is targeted at the victim because of he
being a member of a particular Scheduled Caste or
Tribe. If one calls another an idiot (bewaqoof) or a fool
(murkh) or a thief (chor) in any place within public
view, this would obviously constitute an act intended
to insult or humiliate by user of abusive or offensive
language. Even if the same be directed generally to a
person, who happens to be a Scheduled Caste or
Tribe, per se, it may not be sufficient to attract Section
3(1)(x) unless such words are laced with casteist
remarks. Since Section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars15
2023 SCC OnLine SC 668
36invocation of the court’s jurisdiction under Section 438
CrPC and having regard to the overriding effect of the
SC/ST Act over other laws, it is desirable that before
an accused is subjected to a trial for alleged
commission of offence under Section 3(1)(x), the
utterances made by him in any place within public
view are outlined, if not in the FIR (which is not
required to be an encyclopaedia of all facts and
events), but at least in the charge-sheet (which is
prepared based either on statements of witnesses
recorded in course of investigation or otherwise) so as
to enable the court to ascertain whether the charge-
sheet makes out a case of an offence under the
SC/ST Act having been committed for forming a
proper opinion in the conspectus of the situation
before it, prior to taking cognizance of the
offence. Even for the limited test that has to be
applied in a case of the present nature, the charge-
sheet dated 21-1-2016 does not make out any case of
an offence having been committed by the appellant
under Section 3(1)(x) warranting him to stand a trial.”
24. In Ravinder Singh V. Sukhbir Singh and Ors.16, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paragraph no. 11 as under:-
11. …. To invoke the provisions of the 1989 Act, it is
not enough that the complainant belongs to a
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, as it must16
(2013) 9 SCC 245
37further be established that the alleged offence was
committed with the intention to cause harm to the
person belonging to such category. Moreover, the term
false, malicious and vexatious proceedings must be
understood in a strictly legal sense and hence,
intention (mens rea), to cause harm to a person
belonging to such category must definitely be
established…..”
25. In the light of above discussion and judgments passed by
the Hon’ble Courts, this Court finds the Central Conference Hall of
the University within the four walls of the building of the University
is considered to be a public place because it was/is a venue for
conferences and owned by the Government. The meeting was
attended by senior officers including the Joint Registrars, Deputy
Registrars, Assistant Registrars of the University including
opposite party no. 2 and some other officers. The meeting was held
on 26.06.2023 at 11.30 am. In the said meeting, the petitioner no.
1 abused opposite party no. 2 and further made a statement that
officers from SC, ST or OBC Categories would not be allowed to
enter inside his office chamber and those categories officers would
not make any mobile call to him from the date of meeting though
member of SC, ST or OBC categories are the employees of the said
university. This statement was directly specified to the opposite
38
party no. 2. At the time of utterance, other officers of the university
were very much present as public witness or hear the utterance
made by the accused to the victim. If the alleged offence takes
place in the Central Conference Hall of the said university, then it
can be said that it has taken place in public place within the view
of public. Therefore, such utterance prima facie constitutes an
offence under Section 3(1)(r)(p)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, 1989. Intention of the accused
persons are also prima facie established to humiliate or insult by
asking SC, ST or OBC Categories officers would not be allowed to
enter inside office chamber and those categories officers would not
make any mobile call to petitioner no. 1 from the date of meeting.
Such restrictions based on specific caste identity, and the act takes
place in a public view.
26. It was the case of the Opposite Party No. 2 that the accused
persons had specifically targeted him since he belongs to Schedule
Caste and, accordingly, humiliated him by withholding his release
order to join in his newly appointed post Controller of Examination
at the Central University of Odisha. An FIR was registered against
the Petitioners for offences under Section 500 of the Indian Penal
Code read with Sections 3(1)(r)(u)(p)(s) of the Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Earlier, also a
39
complaint was made against Bidyut Chakrabarty. The said case
was, however, quashed by the Hon’ble Single Bench of this High
Court in CRR No. 1338 of 2020.
27. The basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of
the Act can be classified as :1) intentionally insulting or
intimidating with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and 2) The act taking place within
public view”.
28. In the present case, it was an accepted fact that the scene of
action happened inside the four walls of the Central Conference
Hall of the University in presence of some official members of the
University, the actions would satisfy the first and the second
conditions of Section 3(1)(r) of the Act.
29. I have also gone through the number of authorities cited by
the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Like serial number 1 to 7
mentioned above are mostly dealt with the power of the High Court
under Section 482 of the CrPC and when it applicable. It is settled
position of law that the Power of the High Court under Section 482
of CrPC is wide to protect and secure the ends of justice and also
to prevent from abuse of process of law but here the petitioners
failed to establish their case in positive. At this stage, this Court
40
cannot embark upon a roving trial as to the reliability, genuineness
or otherwise correctness of the allegations made in the FIR and
materials collected during the investigation by the investigating
officer. Hence, the application has devoid of merits.
30. Accordingly, C.R.R. 2599 of 2023 is, thus, dismissed.
Connected applications, if any, are also, thus, disposed of.
31. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
32. Case Diary, if any, is also returned to the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the State.
33. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the
Learned Court below for information and taking necessary action.
34. Parties shall act on the server copies of this Judgment
uploaded on the website of this Court.
35. Urgent photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if
applied for, is to be given as expeditiously to the parties on
compliance of all legal formalities.
(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J)
[ad_1]
Source link