The Calcutta High Court, while granting interim relief to Adhir Ranjan Chowdhary, State President of Indian National Congress in a case registered under Sections 153A, 505(1)(b) and 505 (2) of the IPC observed that it has to be tested whether at all any utterance of such nature, as alleged, is capable of inciting someone to cause an offence against the State or against public tranquillity as referred to in Section 505(1)(b) of the Penal Code.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, the Chairman of the Accounts Committee of the Parliament and the State President of the Indian National Congress filed the present petition seeking relief in FIR filed under Sections 153A, 505(1)(b) and 505 (2) of the IPC.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that while the rally was being held from Manipur to the western part of India by the petitioner’s leader namely, Rahul Gandhi, an unfortunate incident occurred. The rear windshield of the leader’s car was broken. After four days after the incident, an FIR was lodged alleging that the petitioner was spreading rumours that this incident occurred inside the State of West Bengal while actually the same had attended with mala fide and was initiated to seek vengeance against a political opponent.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state denied the allegations and submitted that the utterances of the petitioner, a very prominent leader of a political party in West Bengal were indeed likely to cause fear in the minds of the people and could have instigated any member of the public to commit an offence against the State or against public tranquillity. A prima facie case is made out against the petitioner.
Observations of the court:
The court stated that it has to be tested whether at all any utterance of such nature, as alleged, is capable of inciting someone to cause an offence against the State or against public tranquillity as referred to in Section 505(1)(b) of the Penal Code.
Further, it was stated by the court that supporters of a particular political party are hardly capable of being termed as a group in respect of 505(2) of the Penal Code and the present matter needed to be heard at length. Further, the court directed the investigating agency to not file any report in final form without the leave of the court and further directed that if any interrogation is needed to be made, it would be done through video conferencing after 48 hours prior notice and that the petitioner may be at liberty to seek a stay of the proceedings at the next date of hearing.
The decision of the Court:
The court listed the matter on a further date.
Case Title: Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jay Sengupta
Case No.: WPA No. 6846 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Pratip Kumar Chatterjee, Mr. Mrityunjoy Chatterjee, Mr. Debapriya Majumder, Mr. Akash Sarkar
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Amitesh Banerjee, Mr. Tarak Karan
Read @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
