16.9.2026 Court No.34 Sl. No.16 sg CRR 3021 of 2024 With CRAN 1 of 2025 In the matter of :Amitabha Bhattacharya & Others. ….Petitioners. Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya , sr.adv. Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay Ms. Trisha Rakshit Ms. Aishwarya Datta …for the petitioners. Mr. Probal Das …for the State. 1. This revisional application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakasha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner for quashing of the First Information Report in G.R. Case No. 2527 of 2024 lodged under Sections 153A/295A/120B of the Indian Penal Code, dated June 28th, 2024 arising out of Eco Park Police Station Case No. 131 of 2024 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, North 24-paraganas. 2. Memo of evidence is submitted by the State be kept with the record. 3. Present petitioner no. 1 is a septuagenarian person and medical practitioner. Petitioner no.2 is aged about 54 years old and one of member of the erstwhile governing body of the 2 society. Petitioner no.3 presently working head of SHE- Mines and Minerals at Ranchi and mining graduate from Bengal Engineering College. He is the erstwhile secretary of the governing body of the society. Petitioner no.4 working for Tech Mahindra since 2020 and was the erstwhile treasurer of the governing body. Petitioner no.5 is a software engineer and he is employed under Tata consultancy Service since 2006 was the erstwhile treasurer of the governing body. Petitioner no. 6 is the B. Tech Engineer personally retired who stayed in Bangalore with son and daughter and occasionally visited in Emerald Gardens Complex. 4. Matter pertains to a complaint lodged on June 28, 2024 by the opposite party no. 2 being a resident of Emerald Gardens Complex, Hatiyara, Noapara and Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal Civil Service ( Executive) Officer, alleging inter alia against the petitioners that he has been informed by some people that a particular community who resides in the said residential complex made a WhatsApp group having where WhatsApp messages are written against the erstwhile Hon’ble Chief Minister, West Bengal which are derogatory in nature and the use of sentences and words have affected the dignity of the Hon’ble Chief Minister. Furthermore within the group they have expressed sentences against the people of particular community of that residential complex. It 3 was also alleged that it was moral duty of the complainant being the joint secretary of the Government of West Bengal to lodge FIR against the present petitioners. On the basis of the same the case was initiated under the aforesaid provisions. 5. Learned senior Advocate, Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya submits that on taking the contents of the complaint in its entirety not a single material can be found which would attract any of the section as mentioned herein above. WhatsApp group was formed amongst residents of that particular housing complex and some chats were annexed which can no way come within the corners of the allegation as made under which case has been initiated. 6. Petitioner appeared before the investigating officer pursuant to notice served upon them under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. They were interrogated and verified their mobile phones. It is further submitted instant criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance with a view to spite the petitioners due to political grudge. 7. Learned prosecution, on the other hand, raises objection and hand over Case Diary. 8. Heard the submissions and perused the materials on record. 9. It transpires from the record that the revisional application was filed during pendency of the investigation and vide an interim order all further proceeding was stayed for a limited period. 4 Subsequently no prayer for extension was made but the investigation did not proceed and no chargesheet has yet been submitted . 10. Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya has relied upon a decision reported in AIR 2021 SC (Criminal) 1014 Patricia Mukhim vs State of Meghalaya where it was observed that : “Free speech of the citizens of this country cannot be stifled by implicating them in criminal cases, unless such speech has the tendency to affect public order”. 11. Since the specific allegations are levelled for commission of offences under section 153A /295A/120B IPC let me go through the provisions itself. Section 153A ;Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.- (1)Whoever- (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground 5 whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or (b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity, or (c) organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community and such activity for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of 6 insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Offence committed in place of worship, etc.- (2) Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (1) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine. There is no element of the promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony transpires from the written complaint of the opposite party no. 2 and the First Information Report. Section 295A; - Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.- Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the 7 religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. There is no ingredient or manner of application of the aforementioned section in the offence alleged in the instant case. No prima facie allegation with respect to deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs transpires from the written complaint of the opposite party no. 2 and the First Information Report. Section 120B; - Punishment of criminal conspiracy.--(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, 2[imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a 8 conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both. It was further observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, „there is no element of criminal conspiracy as enumerated under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code in the instant complaint lodged by the opposite party no. 2. The WhatsApp chat in question which was attached with complaint can prima facie failed to establish no nexus with any other person to commit any type of criminal offence. It was held by the Hon‟ble Apex Court that ,”The gist of the offence under section 153A is the intention to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of people .The intention to be judged primarily by the language of the piece of writing and the circumstances in which it was written and published .The matter complained of within the ambit oof 9 section 153A must be read as a whole .One cannot rely on strongly worded and isolated passage for proving the charge nor indeed can take a sentence here and a sentence there and connect them by a meticulous process of inferential reasoning “. 12. On careful perusal of the entire facts and circumstances as can be found from the content of the written complaint and the ingredients which are necessary to constitute an offence under the aforesaid provision this Court do not find any such material which can attract any of aforesaid provision.The specific averment made in the complaint only disclose that one 77 years old person in the whats app group of residents have made some confusing sentences against the earstwhile Chief Minister and other various sentences which had affected the dignity of the erstwhile Chief Minister and a lot of expressly fundamentality sentences against a particular m Community people of their residence .The facts and circumstances manifest there are enmity between the petitioners being the Secretary ,treasurer of erstwhile association of the Housing complex which has escalated to this extent. 13. The observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred judgement in this regard as follows; 10 „ India is a plural and multicultural society. The promise of liberty, enunciated in the Preamble, manifests itself in various provisions which outline each citizen's rights; they include the right to free speech, to travel freely and settle (subject to such reasonable restrictions that may be validly enacted) throughout the length and breadth of India ….’Therefore merely certain statements made within a close group cannot be regarded to be an offence under the aforesaid provision. 14. Power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised by the High Court where there is clear abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice.From the facts and circumstances of the entire case as it appears from the record this court is of the considered view that it is a fit case where such power should be exercised and hence this revisional application is liable to be allowed. 15. Hence instant Criminal Revisional application stands allowed. 16. The entire Proceeding being G.R. Case No. 2527 of 2024 lodged under Sections 153A/295A/120B of the Indian Penal Code, dated June 28th, 2024 arising out of Eco Park Police Station Case No. 131 of 2024 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, North 24-paraganas is hereby quashed against the petitioners . 11 17. Copy of this order be communicated to the concerned Court for information and taking necessary action. 18. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order, duly downloaded from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court. [Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J.]