Dhulagarh Riots Coverage| Calcutta HC Quashes Case Against Journalists Sudhir Chaudhary, Pooja Mehta For Allegedly 'Promoting Enmity'

The Calcutta High Court last week QUASHED a case against Former Zee News Editor (presently Consulting Editor, Aaj Tak) Sudhir Chaudhary, Zee News Journalist Pooja Mehta and cameraperson Tanmay Mukherjee under Section 153A IPC for allegedly 'promoting enmity' during their coverage on 2016 Dhulagarh Riots.

The bench of Justice Bibhas Ranjan De observed that the prosecution could not produce any material before the Court which would attract any offence under Section 153A of the IPC and hence, further proceeding with the case would result in an "abuse of process of court" and "will not serve the ends of justice".

Essentially, the FIR in the case was lodged by one Chiranjeet Das against Chaudhary, Mehta and Mukherjee in December 2016 alleging that they had given a 'communal' angle to the 'disturbance' that had erupted in Dhulagarh in Howrah on December 13 and 14, 2016 in their coverage (on Zee News Channel/Primetime show DNA) which resulted in tension in the area, thereby 'promoting enmity'.

All three had moved the High Court challenging the criminal proceedings in the case. Earlier, in January 2017, the proceedings of the case were stayed by the High Court.

Calcutta High Court has QUASHED case against Former Zee News Editor Sudhir Chaudhary (@sudhirchaudhary), Journalist Pooja Mehta (@pooja_news) under Section 153A IPC for allegedly 'promoting enmity' during their coverage on 2016 Dhulagarh Riots. pic.twitter.com/JOL420AbG3

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) August 9, 2023

Before the Court, the Counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that there is nothing in the FIR promoting enmity between the different groups on the grounds of religion as alleged to constitute an offence Under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code.

It is submitted that the incident alleged in the case happened between two communities on December 13 & 14, 2016 and according to FIR petitioners being officially attached to Zee News visited the spot to cover the news, however, as alleged, the written complaint did not disclose any untoward incident after the visit of Zee News on December 16. It was also contended that the news of the 'disturbance' was covered by various media but proceedings were initiated against officials of Zee News only.

On the other hand, the Counsel appearing on behalf of the State contended that Zee News usually patronize particular political party and the facts of the case relied on behalf of the petitioners are not identical to that of ours.

Having heard the counsels for both sides and on careful perusal of the case diary, the Court found that the Investigating Officer, within the span of 51 days, only succeeded in recording statements of two persons and none of those two witnesses could speak any single word intending to promote enmity between two different communities to attract the Provision under Section 153A of the IPC.

The Court also noted that as per the FIR, nothing untoward incident was found to have been committed after December 16, 2016, when petitioners visited the spot.  Further, the Court also observed that the prosecution could not produce any document showing intention to cause disorder or incite the people to violence.

Against this backdrop, the Court said that no option was left to the court but to quash the proceeding in the case against the petitioners. Consequently, the proceeding was quashed.

Case Title - Pooja Mehta & Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. [CRR 85 of 2017]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 219

Click Here To Read/Download Order