Research › Browse › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

1985 DIGILAW 10 (CAL)

Sanat Kumar Banerjee v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

1985-01-10

Sudhir Ranjan Roy

body1985
JUDGMENT 1. WHETHER defamation of a religious preceptor or the religious head of a community amounts to defamation of his unspecified disciplines or devotees so as to bring them within the category of "some person aggrieved" making them thereby legally competent under section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to sot the criminal law in motion against the offender, is the main question raised in these two Criminal Revision Cases being nos. 2028 of 1981 and 2029 of 1981. 2. THE petitioner is Sanat Kumar Banerjee in both the cases and he has come up before this Court in revision for Quashing the criminal proceedings pending against him under sections 500, 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code: one before' the learned Judicial Magistrate at barrackpore in the District of 24-Parganas and the other before the learned sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Burdwan. The proceeding pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate at Barrackpore is on the complaint of one Kalpana Sengupta, being Case No. C/844/ 80-T/181/80 and the other pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial magistrate, Burdwan is on the complaint of one Chandan Mitra, being base no. 851 of 1980. The complainants as devotees of Sri sri Balak Brahmachari filed the petitions of complaint on the allegation that they were seriously aggrieved by an article written by the petitioner Sanat kumar Banerjee in the 15th Agrahayana, 1387 B. S. issue of 'swastika', a Bengali weekly edited by him, which is highly defamatory of their spiritual head, the said Brahmachari. 3. IN the said article while describing the Brahmachari as a self-styled incarnation of God, doubts have been expressed rather sarcastically about his really being so. It is stated that non -delivers in the alleged Godliness of the Brahmachari, a controversial figure himself, are treated by his followers by doses of stick therapy' and in that connection the case of one Nikhil chakraborty an erstwhile disciple 6f the brahmachari and founder of 'mukti Ashram has been referred. The said Nikhil chakraborty having expressed genuine doubts about the Brahmachari being an incarnation of God, the Brahmachari's disciples raided his Ashram letting lose a reign of terror. 4. INCIDENTALLY, this Nikhil Chakraborty figures as accused No. 2 in both the cases but the case against him was subsequently compounded by one of the complinants, namely, Kalpana-Sengupta. Mr. The said Nikhil chakraborty having expressed genuine doubts about the Brahmachari being an incarnation of God, the Brahmachari's disciples raided his Ashram letting lose a reign of terror. 4. INCIDENTALLY, this Nikhil Chakraborty figures as accused No. 2 in both the cases but the case against him was subsequently compounded by one of the complinants, namely, Kalpana-Sengupta. Mr. Basu, the learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner sanat Kumar Banerjee in both the cases, -made two-fold submissions for quashing the proceedings. His first submission was that the complainants not being 'persons aggrieved' within the meaning of section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were not legally competent to proceed against his client. And secondly, Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India stood as a bar. to his client being prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. 5. INSPITE of notice, the complainants opposite parties did not appear. It was only the State which appeared, though it is not easy to understand how the state could be interested in such matters. 6. ANYWAY, Mr. Ghosh, the learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the state submitted that the religious head of the complainants having been badly defamed they were undoubtedly 'persons aggrieved' within the meaning of section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also submitted that the Rule against 'double jeopardy' as incorporated in Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India had no manner of application to the facts here. Consequently, there was no reason, according to him, for quashing the criminal proceedings. The result of the instant revisional application hinges mainly on the point whether the complainants-opposite parties are actually 'persons aggrieved' within the meaning of section 199 of the code, because the section clearly provides that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter 21 of the Indian Penal Code (defamation) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. The exceptions to this mandatory provision relate to persons suffering from certain legal, technical or physical infirmities as the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 199 of the Code will show. 7. SECTION 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is thus an exception to the General rule that anybody whether, aggrieved or not, can set the criminal law in motion. 7. SECTION 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is thus an exception to the General rule that anybody whether, aggrieved or not, can set the criminal law in motion. The provision is mandatory and cognizance of the offence taken in violation thereof makes the trial illegal and void. 8. THERE is no dispute that in the instant case the alleged defamatory publication is aimed at the Brahmachari and his followers in general without specifying any particular person of the religious community. As a matter of fact, it is not even the case of the complainants opposite parties that they are the forgets of the alleged defamatory publication. Their specific case is that they have felt aggrieved on account of their guru, their spiritual father, having been defamed. So, here is a case where persons other than the person actually defamed have figured as complainants on the ground of their being vicariously aggrieved so to say. They say that the defamation of their Guru, the head of the religious society to which they belong, a person who they esteem more than their father, is in fact, defamation to them as well, 9. IT is true that the 'person aggrieved may not always be the person directly defamed and the word may sometimes refer to others depending upon the nature of the offence and peculiar circumstances of each case; but it now seems to be well-settled that the grievance of the complaints should not up the one snared by every member of an organized society. Some personal element should be there. The defamatory statement should have a tendency to injure the reputation of the complainant himself and should tend to lower him in the estimation of the people. But here, in the instant case, there is nothing to indicate that the imputation is against the complainants personally or has the remotest reference to them excepting that they are devotees of the person allegedly defamed. But this remote reference, in my view, does not make the complainants 'persons aggrieved' within the meaning of section 199 of the Code. 10. As a matter of fact, it has specifically been held by this Court in Dhirendra Nath Sen v. Rajat Kumar Bhandra reported in 1970 Cr. But this remote reference, in my view, does not make the complainants 'persons aggrieved' within the meaning of section 199 of the Code. 10. As a matter of fact, it has specifically been held by this Court in Dhirendra Nath Sen v. Rajat Kumar Bhandra reported in 1970 Cr. L. J. 662 that "if a person, complains that he has been defamed as a member of a class he must satisfy the Court that the imputation is against him personally 'and he is the person aimed at, before he can maintain a prosecution for defamation. In short, the grievance of the complainant should not merely be the one shared by every member of an organized society. Where, therefore, the editor of a paper writes an editorial which is highly defamatory of the spiritual head of a certain community, an individual of that community not an aggrieved person within the meaning of section 198 of the Code of criminal Procedure. The mere fact that the feelings of the complainant have been injured in consequence of a defamatory statement made against his religious head affords him no ground under the law to prosecute the accused for defamation. Scurrilous accusations against the wife may injure the reputation of the husband and the husband as such, may prosecute the accused for defamation as the "person aggrieved but not so an unspecified member of a religious community for the defamation of the spiritual head. Defamation of the spiritual head may injure his feelings as a follower or a devotee but not his personal reputation so as to enable him to bring an action for defamation against the accused. In other words, such a person does not come within the category of some person aggrieved" as used in section 199 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. SIMILAR view of the matter has also been taken by the Delhi High Court in Ganesh Nanand vs. Swami Dayanand as reported in 1980 Cr. L. J. 1036 relying mainly on the earlier decision pi this. Court as already referred to 12. THUS, the complainants here, namely, Kalpana Sengupta and Chandan Mitra not being the "persons aggrieved" within the meaning of section 199 of the code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate could not take cognizance of the offence of defamation against the petitioner Sanat Kumar Banerjee on the complaints filed by them. Court as already referred to 12. THUS, the complainants here, namely, Kalpana Sengupta and Chandan Mitra not being the "persons aggrieved" within the meaning of section 199 of the code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate could not take cognizance of the offence of defamation against the petitioner Sanat Kumar Banerjee on the complaints filed by them. The cognizance so taken are, therefore, void and illegal. In the above view of the matter, the other point urged on behalf of the petitioner, namely, bar against double prosecution and punishment as Contemplated by Article 20 (2) of the constitution of India, does not require any consideration., 13. THE learned Magistrate having taken cognizance of the offence of defamation against the petitioner ignoring the legal bar created by section 199 (1)of the Code, it will be a sheer abuse of the legal process to allow the impugned legal proceedings to continue any further and the said proceedings should, therefore, be quashed. 14. THE revisional applications, accordingly, succeed and the proceedings against the petitioner, being Case No. C/844/80-T/181/80 (Kalpana Sengupta v. sanat Kumar Banerjee and others) and case No. 851 of 1980 (Chandan Mitra vs. Sanat Kumar Banerjee and others) pending respectively before the learned Judicial Magistrate at Barrackpore and the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Burdwan are hereby quashed and the Rule issued are disposed of, This order will govern both the criminal revisional cases heard analogously. Let a copy of this order along with the records if any, be remitted to the courts below without delay. Proceedings quashed.