[Breaking] 'Dignity Of Woman Must Be Protected; Utterance Was Defamatory', Calcutta HC Quashes FIR By Mahua Moitra Against Babul Supriyo; Says Mahua Free To Take Action For Defamation [Read Judgment]

The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday (14th October) quashed the Criminal Proceedings launched against the Union Minister Babul Supriyo, based on a charge sheet filed by the State Police in an FIR lodged by Mahua Moitra (Presently Member of Parliament) alleging that objectionable remark was made against her by Babul Supriyo during a TV Debate.However, the Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri opined that such deliberate utterance made by the petitioner was defamatory statement within the meaning of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code and that Mahua Moitra was at liberty to take any action, according to law, before the appropriate forum.Background of the CaseIn the wake of a political turmoil after the arrest of a leader of opposition party in Lok Sabha on 3rd January, 2017, a national debate was held and telecast by NDTV 24 X 7. The said debate was anchored by Ms. Barkha Dutta and was titled "The Buck Stops Here".In the said national debate, the petitioner (Babul Supriyo), an elected MP and a part of the party in power at Centre and the opposite party No.2 (Mahua Moitra, now a Member of Parliament), then an elected member of Legislative Assembly of the State of West Bengal and National Spokesperson on behalf of her political party at the relevant point of time, took part in the discussion.In the course of such debate, when the opposite party No.2 (Mahua Moitra) was opposing the petitioner's (Babul Supriyo) contention, Supriyo made a comment, "Mohua, are you on Mohua?"According to Mahua Moitra, the said comment was derogatory alluding of the intoxicating liquor called Mohua which is drunk in many tribal areas in India.The opposite party No.2 (Mahua Moitra) accordingly lodged an FIR against the petitioner before the officer-in-charge, Alipore P.S. Police registered Alipore P.S Case No.2 dated 4th January, 2017 under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code and thus commenced the investigation of the case.On completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued a warrant of arrest against the petitioner.It is at this stage, the petitioner filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the charge-sheet before the HC. In March 2017, stay of further proceeding of the criminal case being CGR 62 of 2017 was granted for a limited period of time.Then opposite party No.2 (Mahua Moitra) made an application praying for vacating the interim order. The said application was directed to be treated as an affidavit of opposition to the revision petition and directed to be disposed of along with the instant revision.Finally, the aforesaid criminal revision was heard by the Court (culminating into the Present Judgment) on the basis of specific determination allotted to the Court by the Chief Justice of the Court in terms of the last order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India.Arguments Put Forth by Babul Supriyo's CounselIt was argued that in order to constitute an offence under this Section (S. 509) the accused must have an intention to insult the modesty of a woman. The second part of the section deals with the purported act by the offender in furtherance to his mens-rea.It was argued that the petitioner's remark in a live television show might provoke a controversy; it might so happen that there might be objectionable remarks by the supports of the petitioner against the opposite party following such a statement made by the petitioner, but the statement per se is not made to insult the modesty of the opposite party No.2.Further, it was submitted that in order to be an offence there must be criminality of action and secondly such action must be attributable to woman sex. Calling a lady intoxicant or under influence of liquor does not amount to insult her modesty.The petitioner also took a stand that the said remark was an accidental slip. Even assuming that the petitioner made the remark suggesting the opposite party under influence of liquor, such a statement does not amount to insulting the the modesty of the petitioner as the essence of modesty is her sex.Arguments Put Forth by Mahua Mitra's CounselIt was also pointed out by the Counsel of Mahua Moitra, that the transcription of the programme showed that the anchor/moderator immediately interrupted the petitioner asking him not to make any personal comment.Further, it was argued that if the comment made by the petitioner is viewed from the perspective of Ms. Barkha Dutta, it would prima facie suggest that the petitioner made such comment only to assassinate the personal character of a lady.It was contended by the Counsel that any act which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman amounts either to outraging modesty or insulting the modesty of a woman depending upon the specific act committed by the accused.According to the ...

[Breaking] 'Dignity Of Woman Must Be Protected; Utterance Was Defamatory', Calcutta HC Quashes FIR By Mahua Moitra Against Babul Supriyo; Says Mahua Free To Take Action For Defamation [Read Judgment]

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags