9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1572X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing 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. - Dipankar Datta, J. For the Appellant : Phiroze Edulji, Rajdeep Biswas, Ajay Chaubey ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngly, requested the said O.C. to treat the complaint as an FIR against the said member. 2. The aforesaid complaint was followed by a complaint dated June 25, 2015 of Mr. Ashim Sarkar, General Secretary, BJP, West Bengal, titled additional written information of cognizable offences committed by...... . In continuation of the earlier complaint, Mr. Sarkar sought to provide instances of multitude of hate speeches delivered by political leaders owing allegiance to the ruling party in the State. Apprehending serious trouble and chaos insofar as law and order situation is concerned, the said O.C. was requested to investigate the complaint upon treating it as an FIR in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 (Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh Ors.) 3. Mr. Edulji, learned Advocate for the petitioners, while referring to various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter the Cr.P.C.) as well as the decisions in Lalita Kumari (supra) and in W.P. 965(W) of 2014 (Mira Banerjee Anr. v. The State of West Bengal Ors.) dated April 10, 2014 rendered by this Bench, contended that Section 115 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter the IP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sewhere and not before the writ Court. 6. Secondly, it was contended by Mr. Majumder that a writ petition [W.P. 15268(W) of 2015: Biplab Kumar Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal Ors.] had been moved before this Bench by a so-called public spirited citizen claiming that by delivering the hate speech, the said member had committed offences punishable under Sections 115/141/153A/503/504/505 and 506, IPC and that direction ought to be given to the said inspector to register an FIR on the basis of the complaint dated June 25, 2015. The said writ petition had been considered by this Bench on July 22, 2015 and Mr. Majumder's submission that the matter had been referred to the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction was recorded. He further pointed out that having regard to the fact that the police was not found to be completely inactive and further having regard to the observation that whether or not the speech delivered by the said member amounts to a hate speech would require thorough examination, this Bench had refused to entertain the writ petition and had granted liberty to the said petitioner to pursue his remedy provided by the Cr.P.C. Relying on such decision, he reiterat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iginal, on the following day. 11. The receipted copy, in original, was produced by Mr. Edulji before the Bench and on perusal thereof, the submission of Mr. Majumder, made on the earlier day, was found to be absolutely correct. Finding himself on soft soil, Mr. Edulji sought to explain and justify as to why and how copy of the receipted copy in original was not annexed to the writ petition. 12. Assuming that a mistake on the part of someone as submitted by Mr. Edulji resulted in omission to annex the copy of the original receipted copy of the complaint in its entirety bearing the endorsement of the G.D. entry and the seal, no explanation worth the name has been advanced as to why in the body of the writ petition the facts that the general diary entry bearing No. 1763 having been made by Jorasanko Police Station and lodging of the complaint at Basirhat Police Station by another wing of the first petitioner were not disclosed and by painting a totally contrary picture of culpable inaction of the said O.C. referring to the decisions in Lalita Kumari (supra) and Mira Banerjee (supra), an attempt to mislead the Court was made. 13. To err is human, but it has to be remembered th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
