Calcutta High Court Upholds Magistrate's Rejection of Petition for FIR Against Musician Nachiketa Chakraborty
Court cites lack of jurisdiction and evidence as basis for dismissal of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has upheld the decision of the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court-I, Calcutta, to dismiss a petition seeking the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against renowned Bengali singer Nachiketa Chakraborty. The petitioner, Anirban Bhattacharya, had alleged that Chakraborty made hate speech during a live concert, which was said to provoke sentiments and outrage religious feelings of Lord Ram's followers. However, the court found no substantial evidence to support these claims, leading to the rejection of the application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
The ruling, delivered by Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, emphasized the importance of territorial jurisdiction and the necessity of specific evidence in taking cognizance of alleged offences. Despite the petitioner's claims that hate speech was spread on social media platforms, the court noted that no concrete details, such as the date, time, and location of the concert, were provided. Furthermore, the inquiry conducted by Shyampukur Police Station failed to establish any prima facie case or jurisdictional connection to support the allegations.
Justice Gupta's judgment also highlighted the concept of Zero FIRs under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. While Zero FIRs allow for the registration of complaints irrespective of jurisdiction, they require subsequent transfer to the appropriate jurisdiction for investigation. The court noted that the petitioner's application lacked adequate material to establish jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of the application by the Magistrate.
The petitioner contended that the Magistrate should have considered the hate speech shown on social media, arguing that the petitioner's official address fell within the jurisdiction of the concerned police station. However, the court endorsed the Magistrate's findings, stating that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence or details to substantiate the allegations.
The judgment also referenced a directive from the Supreme Court, which mandates State Governments to take suo moto action in cases of hate speech under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Nevertheless, the court noted the absence of any such action by the State in this case, due to a lack of information regarding the alleged incident.
The Calcutta High Court's decision underscores the importance of providing specific evidence and jurisdictional clarity when seeking legal remedies for alleged offences. The ruling serves as a reminder of the procedural requirements under Indian law, particularly in cases involving allegations of hate speech and religious sentiments.
Bottom Line:
Magistrate's jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is limited to directing investigations by police officers within their territorial jurisdiction. Zero FIRs under Section 173(1) of BNSS allow for registration of complaints irrespective of jurisdiction but require subsequent transfer for investigation. Lack of specific evidence, such as date, time, and location of alleged incidents, cannot justify cognizance of alleged offences.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., Section 173(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 153, 153A, 295A, 298 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Anirban Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2781419
