The Calcutta High Court in the case observed and has stayed the proceedings in an FIR lodged against ‘Bongo TV’ Journalist Rojina Rahaman for conducting an interview with a Bharatiya Janata Party, BJP Councillor who expressed critical views concerning a former Trinamool Congress, TMC and the Member of Parliament, MP.
In the present case, the FIR has been lodged against Rahaman as stated under Sections 500 and 505 (2) reading with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, wherein it has been alleged that her news channel published and circulated misleading and false statements about former TMC MP Kunal Ghosh i.e., the (respondent no 6.
It was also alleged before the court that Rahaman conducted an interview of one Sajal Ghosh, councillor and social media panellist of BJP, wherein he addressed the TMC leader, the respondent no. 6 as a thief, lowly person and illiterate and also mocked the press conferences.
The court observed that the Ghosh also accused respondent no 6 to be the sole reason behind the suicide of many people and in the FIR, the Journalist in the case was accused of airing this interview to create confusion amongst people and to defame respondent no 6.
The court issued the notice under section 41-A to the petitioner, the Journalist Rojina Rahaman by the police authorities in this regard, she moved the High Court, challenging the same. The counsel appearing for her argued before the court that being a journalist, the petitioner had only interviewed a political personality belonging to the opposition political party, wherein he had made some statements against respondent no.6, for which, no fault can be found with the petitioner.
Furtehr, it has been argued before the court that the person who had spoken such words was not made an accused and hence, no prima facie case was made out against the petitioner.
It was contended before the court that no case alleging defamation as stated under Section 500 of the Penal Code can be registered by way of an FIR and that no such case under 505 (2) was made out for allegedly causing incitement or apprehension of creating enmity between two groups on the ground of religion race and like and that was, at best, a personal insinuation made to an individual by another.
On the other hand, the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted before the court that respondent no.6 opposes the prayer and submits that a prima facie case had been made out against the petition and hence, the High Court seek not to interfere with the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The bench headed by Justice Jay Sengupta in the case observed and has noted that the applications filed for quashing a criminal proceeding by invoking powers as stated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are maintainable.
The court in the case noted that the court owns a duty to look into the FIR with care a little more closely.
It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in frivolous or vexatious 3 proceedings, the said Court is duty bound to look into the other attending circumstances and try to read in between the lines.
Further, the court also called it surprising that the person who allegedly made the insinuations was not made an accused in this case and instead only the anchor or journalist was hauled up.
It has also been noted by the court that the case of defamation can only be instituted by way of lodging a petition of complaint before a learned Magistrate and not by way of an FIR as had been done in the instant case while relying on the case Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India 2016.
The court observed with regards to invoking of section 502(2) of the Indian Penal Code, IPC that the alleged offence was not made out as there are no two different groups between which enmity could be created or promoted on the grounds of race or religion, etc. by making the alleged utterances. The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case observed and has stayed the proceedings.
Accordingly, the court listed the matter for further consideration on January 19, 2024.
