Court Rules Complaint Lacked Essential Ingredients of Offences under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Quashing Prevents Abuse of Legal Process
In a significant judgment delivered on October 9, 2026, the Calcutta High Court quashed a First Information Report (FIR) registered against Sk. Safikul Islam, a journalist and YouTube news channel operator of "Arambagh TV," on allegations of broadcasting false and misleading news concerning RG Kar Hospital, Kolkata. The FIR was registered by the Cyber Crime Police Station, Hooghly Rural, under Sections 340(2), 353(1)(b)(2), and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), following a complaint by Subhashish Chakraborty.
The complaint alleged that a video aired by the petitioner contained fabricated statements about violations at RG Kar Hospital and announced a protest rally within the hospital premises, purportedly disturbing peace and harmony and fostering social unrest. The complainant sought police investigation to prevent potential law and order breakdown.
However, Justice Anuj Singh, presiding over the case, examined the complaint and found that the allegations, even if accepted fully, did not disclose the essential elements constituting the offences charged under the relevant sections of the BNS. Specifically, the court noted that the complaint lacked any claim of use of forged documents or electronic records, a requirement for Section 340(2). It further found no specific false statement alleged with intent to cause public fear or promote enmity between communities, which are necessary to attract Sections 353(1)(b)(2). Moreover, the complaint did not allege any intentional insult aimed at provoking breach of peace under Section 352.
The court underscored that mere belief or feeling by the complainant that the broadcast was false, without precise foundational allegations, is insufficient to establish criminal liability. Additionally, it was pointed out that the continuation of the criminal proceeding under these circumstances would amount to an abuse of the judicial process.
The petitioner contended that this FIR was one of multiple attempts to harass him due to his critical views against the State Government, and highlighted the adverse impact on his livelihood, including the freezing of his bank account during the investigation. Notably, the complainant later intervened in the proceedings, stating the complaint was lodged under a misunderstanding and expressing no objection to quashing the FIR.
The court, while acknowledging the complainant's consent, clarified that quashing of FIRs involving allegations affecting public order cannot rest solely on complainant's withdrawal. Instead, the court conducted an independent examination of the complaint and concluded that the FIR did not disclose any cognizable offence. The court also emphasized that it made no determination on the truth or falsity of the broadcast content.
Accordingly, the High Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the FIR and all associated proceedings. The petitioner's bail bonds were discharged, and the court directed transmission of the order to the jurisdictional magistrate for necessary action.
This judgment reaffirms the judiciary's role in preventing misuse of criminal law provisions to stifle journalistic expression, particularly in cases where allegations do not meet statutory requirements for offences and continuation of prosecution would be oppressive.
Bottom Line:
FIR against journalist running YouTube news channel quashed as complaint alleging false and misleading broadcast did not disclose essential ingredients of offences under Sections 340(2), 353(1)(b)(2) and 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Mere belief of complainant that report was false is insufficient - Quashing cannot rest merely on complainant's later consent, but is justified where allegations taken at face value do not constitute any offence and continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 340(2), 353(1)(b)(2), 352; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528
Sk. Safikul Islam v. Union of India, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2993882
