Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Against Journalist Over Allegedly False Report On Kolkata's RG Kar Hospital

The Calcutta High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a journalist running the YouTube news channel Arambagh TV over a broadcast concerning alleged irregularities at Kolkata's RG Kar Medical College and Hospital, holding that the allegations in the complaint did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences invoked against him.

Justice Anuj Singh held that even if the allegations in the complaint were accepted in their entirety, no offence was made out under Sections 340(2), 353(1)(b), 353(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

“The allegations taken on the face of the FIR and taken at its face value do not constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused,” the Court observed.

The Court further found that the criminal proceeding was “manifestly attended with malafide” and appeared to have been instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance against the journalist.

The petitioner, Sk. Safikul Islam, had approached the High Court seeking quashing of Cyber Crime Police Station, Hooghly Rural, Case No. 6 of 2024, registered on August 15, 2024, on the basis of a complaint lodged by Subhashish Chakraborty.

The complaint alleged that the complainant had watched a video broadcast by Islam, who hosted the Arambagh TV news channel, in which a female voice stated that the activities of RG Kar Hospital were in violation of rules and regulations. The complainant claimed that the statement was false and fabricated and alleged that the dissemination of such news could disrupt peace and harmony and create social unrest.

The complaint also referred to a protest rally allegedly being organised within the hospital and sought an investigation into the channel's reporting to prevent a breakdown of law and order.

Examining the allegations, the Court noted that the complainant's case proceeded entirely on the premise that he believed or felt that the report was false.

“A belief that a report is false, without any further statement attached thereto, cannot be considered to be an allegation from which an offence under the penal statute can be inferred,” the Court held.

The Court found that the complaint did not allege that any document or electronic record had been forged or that the petitioner had knowingly or dishonestly used a forged document as genuine, as required to attract Section 340(2) BNS.

With regard to Section 353(1)(b) BNS, which deals with statements intended or likely to cause fear or alarm to the public in circumstances specified under the provision, the Court noted that the complaint did not identify any specific statement in the video as false or allege the requisite intent to cause public alarm or induce the commission of an offence against the State or public tranquillity.

The complaint also did not allege that the broadcast was intended to promote enmity, hatred or ill-will between different communities, as contemplated under Section 353(2) BNS.

Similarly, the Court found no allegation that the petitioner had intentionally insulted anyone with the intention or knowledge that such provocation would cause a breach of public peace, as required under Section 352 BNS.

The Court clarified that it had independently examined the complaint and had not quashed the FIR merely because the complainant subsequently expressed his willingness to withdraw from the prosecution.

“The present conclusion is entirely on basis of the allegations in the complaint, taken at their face value,” the Court said, adding that it was expressing no finding on the truth or falsity of the contents of the video or the allegations made against it.

Background

Islam claimed that he was a journalist who operated Arambagh TV, a YouTube news channel carrying news and critical analysis of the State Government's functioning. He stated that he had previously worked with Calcutta Television Network and operated a local vernacular newspaper, Arambag Barta.

He contended that the FIR was one of several false criminal cases initiated against him over the years because his views were perceived as being critical of the then State Government.

During the pendency of the petition, the investigating officer had also frozen a bank account maintained by the petitioner with the State Bank of India, pursuant to an order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hooghly.

By an interim order dated October 4, 2024, the High Court had stayed further proceedings in the case, restrained the police from taking coercive action against the petitioner and directed that the bank account be de-frozen. The investigating officer was, however, permitted to obtain a detailed statement of transactions relating to the account.

The investigation remained stayed, and no chargesheet had been filed.

During the proceedings, the complainant sought to be impleaded and stated that he had lodged the complaint under a misunderstanding of facts and no longer wished to pursue the criminal case. The Court allowed his application for impleadment but held that his subsequent position could not, by itself, determine whether the FIR should be quashed.

Allowing the petition, the High Court quashed the FIR and all proceedings arising from it, and directed that any bail bond furnished by the petitioner in connection with the case stand discharged.

Case: Sk. Safikul Islam -Versus- Union of India & Ors.