AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 1572
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is of complaints dated June 23, 2015 and June 25, 2015 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 in Basirhat, Dist. 24 Parganas (North) on June 22, 2015. Accordingly, they have prayed for relief as follows: "a) issue a writ and/or order and/or direction in the nature of Mandamus, directing the issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, transferring the written complaint dated 23rd June 2015 and further information lodged on 25th June 2015 by the petitioner with the Jorasanko Police Station, to the any other investigation agency, for dealing with the same in accordance with law; b) issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
........". 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.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....23, 2015]; that, subsequently, several other complaints containing similar allegations having been received, further G.D. entries were made on June 24, June 26 and June 27, 2015 culminating in submission of a prayer before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basirhat (hereafter the ACJM) for permission to enquire under Section 155, Cr.P.C. in relation thereto; that, on July 15, 2015, upon consideration of the prayer of the police, the ACJM granted necessary permission for enquiry under Section 155, Cr.P.C. and called for a report on July 31, 2015; that, a report was received from the investigating officer on July 21, 2015, which was directed to be kept with the record by the ACJM and for being put up on July 31, 2015, as directed earl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmission that the petitioners ought to pursue their remedy under the Cr.P.C. 7. Finally, Mr. Majumder contended that the writ petition should be dismissed for suppression of material facts by the petitioners. Referring to various paragraphs of the writ petition, he sought to demonstrate that although it is the specific claim of the petitioners that the said O.C. had remained inactive despite receipt of the complaints dated June 23, 2015 and June 25, 2015 disclosing commission of cognizable offence by the said member, they had deliberately withheld an important fact. According to him, the copy document at page 52 of the writ petition being the written complaint of Mr. Beriwala is, in fact, a tampered document. Developing his argument on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dismissed. 10. Hearing was, accordingly, adjourned for the day and Mr. Edulji was called upon to produce the receipted copy, in original, 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....