Calcutta High Court: A petition was filed by the petitioner, a retired Indian Police Service officer and recipient of the President’s Medal, seeking the quashing of a case under Sections and of the which was initiated based on a complaint accusing him of making derogatory remarks during a public convention organized by Presidency University to discuss protests by junior doctors regarding the alleged rape and murder of a doctor at R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital. Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J., held that there were no sufficient grounds to grant interim relief, and the respondents were directed to file their affidavit-in-opposition within five weeks.
The petitioner served in various positions in West Bengal for over 30 years and retired as the Inspector General of Police (IGP) Railways, West Bengal, in 2011. On 18-09-2024, the petitioner attended a convention organized by Presidency University to discuss protests by junior doctors regarding the alleged rape and murder of a doctor at R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital. During the convention, the petitioner, representing civil society, expressed his views about the incident, including criticisms of the investigation by the State police. Shortly thereafter, a complaint was lodged against him by respondent 3, resulting in the registration of a case under Sections and of the .
Counsel for the petitioner contended that the allegations in the complaint were baseless and frivolous as Section of the deals with insulting and provoking a person to commit an offence, while Section 352 relates to breaking public peace. The counsel emphasized that the petitioner did not insult or provoke anyone during the convention and that the complaint did not mention any such statements.
Counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioner made derogatory remarks during his speech, particularly referencing the women of Sonagachi, a red-light district, which insulted the modesty of women living there. Counsel for the State further submitted that the petitioner’s remarks incited protests by the women of Sonagachi, resulting in road blockages and raising concerns about a potential breach of peace in the area.
Thus, the Court concluded that there were no immediate grounds to pass an interim order to quash the criminal case. The Court emphasized that interim relief is typically granted in situations where there is an urgent threat of irreparable harm, which was not present in this case. The Court directed the respondents to file their affidavit-in-opposition within five weeks.
[Pankaj Kumar Datta v State of WB , WPA 24867 of 2024, decided on 03-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee Mr. Sirshendu Sinha Roy Mr. Debashis Banerjee Mr. Abhisek Halder Ms. Moumita Pandit Mr. S. Naskar Ms. J. Patra Mr. Bhaskar Mondal … … for the petitioner
Mr. Kishore Datta, AG Mr. Amitesh Banerjee, SSC Mr. Sirsanya Bandyopadhyay Mr. Debangshu Dinda … … for the State
Mr. Manoj Malhotra Mr. Ravi Kumar Dubey … … for the respondent no.3
The post appeared first on .