JAY PRAKASH MAJUMDAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the legal pregnability of the order dated 1st March, 2017 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in connection with C/25 of 2017, the petitioner has preferred this revisional application.

(2.) The grievances, as ventilated in this application, are such that on 23.04.2016 the opposite parties with criminal intent and in connivance with each other conducted a press conference with a definite motive to malign a political party (Bharatiya Janata Party), exhibited some still photographs which contains a picture of Mr. Rajnath Singh (Minister-in-charge, Home Affairs, Union of India) offering a laddu (a kind of sweet item), to Mr. Prakash Karat, Former General Secretary of CPI(M). The said picture was shown in a press conference and was also released in the official Facebook of All India Trinamul Congress. According to the complainant, at the behest of Smt. Mamata Banerjee, Chairperson of All India Trinamul Congress, that picture was exhibited before the assembly election only to malign the said political party and to gain something by showing alleged political alliance between CPI(M) and BJP, as it was released in public domain. Those pictures/photographs were fakes. Airing out their such grievances, one Jay Prakash Majumdar Vice-President of BJP State Committee sent a complianant to the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) for taking action. After receiving the same, the said authority remains as a passive onlooker. The complainant, after a few days, again drew the attention of the said authority and this time the officer-in-charge (cyber-crime) has informed the complainant that the matter is being enquired and they are to obtain legal opinion. Their such reply could not make the complainant satisfied. Then the complainant lodged the complaint before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, who in turn, returned the complaint giving his reasons. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said finding, the complainant filed this revisional application.

(3.) At the time of hearing, learned Counsel Mr. Ghosh, appearing on behalf of the complainant at the very outset argued that if a cognizable offence is made out, the Magistrate was bound to allow his application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. In reply the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Mukherjee, contended that since Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C. read with Section 154(3) are not complied with the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate quite rightly returned the complaint.