2015 (8) TMI 1572 - HC - Indian Laws

Inaction of the Officer-in-Charge, Jorasanko Police Station (hereafter the said O.C.) in taking steps for registration of an FIR - complaints in relation to a perceived hate speech delivered by a Member of Parliament (hereafter the said member) owing allegiance to the political party in power in this State, while addressing a public rally - HELD THAT - To err is human, but it has to be remembered that this is not a writ petition at the instance of a stranger or a busybody attempting to gain cheap popularity by espousing a pretended public cause; it is inter alia at the instance of a political party which, in the parliamentary elections last conducted in the country, was successful in emerging as the party having the maximum number of representatives in the Lok Sabha and is also part of the ruling dispensation at the Centre. Invocation of extraordinary writ jurisdiction of a high Court by a political party of the stature of the first petitioner, not being unmindful of the influence that it wields on the common people, pertaining to a sensitive issue in such a disorganized manner and with such a casual approach not only merits to be deprecated but the time is now ripe, when the Courts in India are faced with a deluge of litigation from aggrieved persons seeking justice and the Courts are hard pressed in listening to the grievance of each one of them, to send a strong signal that the Courts are not the place for settling political scores and that wastage of judicial time, though nominal in measure, would not be tolerated. This bench has no hesitation to hold that not only should this writ petition be not entertained in view of the developments post the decision in Biplab Kumar Chowdhury but the petitioners ought to suffer exemplary costs so as to remind the first petitioner that howsoever strong and mighty it is in the political scene, it must respect the laws of the country while seeking to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the Court and not suppress facts or produce a tampered document to suit its end. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged inaction of the Officer-in-Charge, Jorasanko Police Station in registering an FIR based on complaints related to a hate speech by a Member of Parliament.
2. Interpretation of provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Indian Penal Code regarding the duty to register an FIR.
3. Suppression of material facts in the writ petition leading to dismissal and imposition of costs on the petitioners.

Issue 1: Alleged Inaction of the Police Station:
The writ petition was filed by Bharatiya Janata Party and its office secretary, alleging inaction by the Officer-in-Charge, Jorasanko Police Station, in registering an FIR based on complaints regarding a hate speech by a Member of Parliament. The complaints were lodged on June 23, 2015, and June 25, 2015, citing instances where the said member made provocative statements instigating violence. The petitioners sought a writ of Mandamus to transfer the complaints to another investigating agency for proper action. The respondent argued that the complaints were already being addressed through the legal process, including an enquiry under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C., and hence, the petitioners' remedy did not lie before the writ Court.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Legal Provisions:
The petitioner's advocate argued that Section 115 of the IPC, dealing with abetment to commit an offense, required the registration of an FIR due to the disclosure of a cognizable offense. Reference was made to the Lalita Kumari case and a previous judgment by the Bench, emphasizing the statutory duty of the police to register an FIR in such cases. The respondent highlighted that the matter had been referred to the Magistrate for consideration and that the police were not inactive, thus suggesting that the petitioners should pursue their remedy under the Cr.P.C. The Court examined the legal provisions and the actions taken by the police, ultimately dismissing the writ petition due to suppression of material facts and misleading information presented by the petitioners.

Issue 3: Suppression of Material Facts:
The respondent contended that the petitioners had suppressed crucial information in the writ petition, specifically regarding the nature of the complaints and actions taken by the police. It was revealed that the original complaint documents had been tampered with, leading to a misrepresentation of facts in the petition. The Court found the petitioners' approach to be disorganized and casual, especially considering their political stature and influence. The Court dismissed the writ petition, imposed exemplary costs on the petitioners, and emphasized the importance of respecting the legal process and not misusing the court's jurisdiction for political agendas.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Calcutta High Court highlights the issues of alleged police inaction, legal interpretations of registering an FIR, and the consequences of suppressing material facts in a writ petition. The Court's decision underscores the importance of upholding legal standards and integrity in seeking judicial remedies, especially in politically sensitive matters.