The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal defamation proceedings against Republic Media Network Senior Executive Editor/Editor-in-Chief Abhishek Kapoor and reporter Bittu Chowdhury, arising out of a telephonic conversation with singer Kabir Suman, holding that continuation of the complaint amounted to an abuse of the process of law.

Justice Uday Kumar was hearing two criminal revisional applications filed by Kapoor and Chowdhury, challenging proceedings in Complaint Case No. 1286 of 2022 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 9th Court, Alipore. The complaint invoked Sections 499, 500 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Court noted at the outset that Kabir Suman, the complainant/opposite party no. 2, had persistently remained absent despite several opportunities and notices. In view of his continued absence and the long pendency of the proceedings, the Court proceeded to hear the matter ex parte.

The case arose from a telephonic conversation on January 27, 2022, when Bittu Chowdhury, then a reporter attached to Republic Bangla, called Suman seeking a reaction concerning late singer Sandhya Mukherjee.

According to the materials recorded by the Court, Suman reacted to the call using what the Court described as “common Bengali slangs and expletives”. On January 29, 2022, Suman subsequently published a Facebook apology concerning his outburst.

After the audio recording of the conversation was circulated, a legal notice was issued and replies were exchanged. The Magistrate thereafter took cognizance and issued summons to the accused.

The Court noted that while Chowdhury was directly accused of recording and circulating the conversation, Kapoor had been implicated in his capacity as Senior Executive Editor/Editor-in-Chief of Republic Media Network.

The petitioners argued that the essential ingredients of the offence of defamation under Section 499 IPC were absent. Senior Advocate Sandipan Ganguly, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that an “imputation” under Section 499 IPC presupposes an active assertion, allegation or attribution originating from the accused and could not encompass the recording or dissemination of the complainant's own unedited words spoken in his own voice.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Jawaharlal Darda & Ors. v. Manoharrao Ganpatrao Kapsikar & Anr., wherein it was held that where a publication is a true and faithful account of what transpired and does not contain any independent, malicious or fabricated imputation by the accused, the essential ingredients of defamation are absent.

The Court also referred to its earlier decisions in Samik Ghosh and Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. and Afshan Meerza v. The State of West Bengal & Anr., concerning faithful reporting or reproduction without editorial malice.

Justice Kumar further considered Explanation 4 to Section 499 IPC, which provides that an imputation is not said to harm a person's reputation unless it lowers the person's moral or intellectual character, or otherwise lowers the person's character or credit in the estimation of others.

The Court noted that the complainant's initial deposition under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not contain testimony from any independent third-party witness stating that the complainant's moral or intellectual character had been lowered in their estimation.

The Court also found procedural infirmities in the orders passed by the Magistrate.

It observed that the cognizance order dated May 19, 2022 had been passed by merely filling out or signing a printed pro forma, contrary to Rule 183 of the Calcutta High Court Criminal (Subordinate Courts) Rules, 1985 and the principles laid down in Sharmistha Chowdhury & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

The summoning order dated July 14, 2022 was also found to suffer from procedural and substantive defects. According to the Court, it had been issued mechanically against a vague designation, “The Editor - Republic Bangla”, and the reporter, without determining their individual roles or specific culpability.

The Court relied upon Supreme Court decisions including Sharad Kumar Sanghi v. Sangita Rane and JM Laboratories and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., which emphasised the requirement for a Magistrate's summoning order to reflect application of judicial mind and, particularly in cases involving persons holding corporate or editorial positions, to contain specific allegations demonstrating their individual participation.

The Court further noted that the petitioners resided beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Alipore. It held that the Magistrate had failed to conduct the mandatory pre-summoning inquiry contemplated under Section 202 CrPC.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Ministry of Law & Ors., the Court observed that Section 202 CrPC requires the Magistrate to postpone issuance of process and conduct an inquiry or direct an investigation where the accused resides beyond the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction.

“Upon a holistic synthesis of the statutory provisions, the undisputed facts, the continuous flow of arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, and the ratio decidendi of the binding precedents cited herein, this Court is firmly of the view that the continuation of Complaint Case No. 1286 of 2022 against both petitioners is an egregious abuse of the process of law and a travesty of justice,” the Court held.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed both criminal revisional applications and quashed the entire proceedings in Complaint Case No. 1286 of 2022 against Kapoor and Chowdhury.

The Court also set aside the cognizance order dated May 19, 2022, the summoning order dated July 14, 2022, and all consequential orders insofar as they concerned the two petitioners.

Case Title: Abhishek Kapoor v. Kabir Suman; Bittu Roy Choudhury v. Kabir Suman

Case Nos.: CRR 4680 of 2022 with CRAN 15 of 2026; CRR 842 of 2023 with CRAN 12 of 2026

Click here to read order