ASHA MUKHERJEE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was the Registrar (Acting) of the Visva-Bharati Central University at Santiniketan in West Bengal till August, 2020. The challenge mounted in the present writ petition is primarily against purported notices, being annexed at pages-36, 37, 39, 40 and page-45 of the writ petition, all of which, except the first (dated August 27, 2020), are captioned to be under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the respondent no. 5 herein had been taking photographs on his mobile phone despite a banner forbidding the same, thereby causing discomfort to the lady security staff and colleagues of the petitioner, at the Visva-Bharati "Mandir" premises on August 1, 2020. It is further alleged that the respondent no. 5 had also taken photographs on July 31, 2020 of the Vice Chancellor and other faculty members of the Visva-Bharati without their consent and despite repeated pleas to stop. As such, a complaint was lodged by the petitioner with the Officer-in-charge of the Santiniketan Police Station at Birbhum, which was received on August 1, 2020 at 11:05 p.m. and Santiniketan P.S. Case No. 113 of 2020 was started on the basis thereof under Sections 448/354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Such complaint was registered as a First Information Report (FIR) and ASI Susanta Pathak was entrusted as the Investigating Officer thereof.

(3.) On the same date, the respondent no. 5 had also lodged a counter-complaint, which was received by the Santiniketan Police Station apparently at 10:35 p.m., thereby giving rise to Santiniketan P.S. Case No. 112 of 2020 under Sections 341/323/325/392/506/34 of the IPC. The purport of the complaint was that the respondent no. 5 (the complainant therein) had been publishing some internal news of the Visva-Bharati, which had irked the authorities of the said University. He further alleged that, while taking photographs and collecting news in front of the "Upasana Griha", the Vice Chancellor of the University reached the University premises in a car, being driven by his son, photographs of whom was also taken by the respondent no. 5. Immediately, according to the said respondent, the Vice Chancellor directed 5-6 security guards to restrain him and the mobile phone of the respondent no. 5 was sought to be snatched away by the Vice Chancellor. On respondent no. 5 putting up a resistance, he was physically assaulted and his mobile phone was forcibly seized. The Vice Chancellor allegedly threatened that he would abuse his power and frame the respondent no. 5 in a false criminal case; moreover, the complainant (respondent no. 5) was also apprehending the risk of being infected by the prevalent Corona Virus due to so many people having physically restrained him.