The single judge bench of Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Sri Protip Roy Basunia Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr. held that being tagged in the space of comments on social media at the instance of any other person necessarily does not confer any liability or responsibility on the person being tagged with or express unanimity of the comment or its essence thereof constructively.
Brief facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the complaint was filed by the defacto complainant and based on the complaint the case was initiated under Sections 504/505/506/120 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 for spreading communal hatred and violence amongst the people of society via certain comments on Facebook. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed the criminal revisional application to seek direction from the present court to quash the complaint.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case just because of their political ideologies. Furthermore, it was contended that the instant case initiated is liable to be quashed as the procedure given under Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been followed. At last, it was submitted that the basic ingredients of an offense under section 505 of the Indian penal code have not been made out.Even if the allegations in the FIR or the complaint are taken at face value, they fail to prima facie constitute an offense or establish a case against the accused, the criminal proceedings initiated against him are liable to be dismissed.
Contentions of the State:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that the existence of materials on record implicating the petitioner and his involvement will be proven during the trial process, and the proceedings will not be quashed at this early stage.
Observations of the court:
The Hon’ble High Court observed that the complaint and statements on record under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not describe the specific act of the present petitioner that would constitute the elements of an offence under Sections 504/505/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
The High Court relied upon the judgments titled Bilal Ahmed Kaloo Vs. State of A.P and State of A.P. Vs. Bilal Ahmed Kaloo.
It was noted that it was not revealed in the case diary records if the petitioner made any comments on the Facebook post that started the animosity between religious groups. Furthermore, there is no evidence of the purported aftereffect of the Facebook posts, which would have been a violent eruption and a profoundly damaging effect on society at large. There isn't enough evidence in the case record to indict the petitioner on the charges that he participated directly in the commission of the crimes that are being accused of.
It was furthermore noted that being tagged in the comments section of a social media post at the suggestion of another person does not automatically entail any accountability or responsibility on the part of the person being mentioned, nor does it necessarily convey agreement with the statement or its main points in a constructive manner.
Based on these considerations, the Hon’ble Court was of the view that allowing the petitioner to face trial will result in abuse of the process of law.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the Hon’ble High Court allowed the present criminal revisional application.
Case Title: Sri Protip Roy Basunia Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr
Coram: Hon’ble Mrs Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
Case No.: C.R.R. 113 of 2021
Advocate for the Petitioner: Advocates Mr. Avrojyoti Das, Mr. Pritam Roy
Advocate for the State: Advocates Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, Mr. Nilay Chakraborty
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
