FIR against journalist over RG Kar Hospital report quashed after court finds complaint disclosed no offence

The petitioner, a journalist associated with the YouTube channel Arambagh TV, sought to quash Cyber Crime Police Station, Hooghly Rural Case No. 6 of 2024.

The FIR followed a complaint alleging that a broadcast about alleged rule violations at RG Kar Hospital and a protest rally was false and could cause social unrest.

The case was registered under Sections 340(2), 353(1)(b) and 353(2), and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

During the writ proceedings, the Court stayed further proceedings and directed that the petitioner’s bank account be de-frozen.

The de facto complainant was later impleaded and stated that he did not wish to pursue the case and had complained under a misunderstanding.

1. Whether the FIR could be quashed on the complainant’s stated unwillingness to pursue the prosecution.

2. Whether the complaint, taken at face value, disclosed the ingredients of offences under Sections 340(2), 353(1)(b), 353(2) and 352 of the BNS, warranting continuation of the investigation.

The High Court may quash an FIR under Article 226 of the Constitution or its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.

Under State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and R.P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, quashing may be appropriate where, even accepting the allegations in full, no offence is disclosed.

The power must be exercised sparingly.

Under Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, a complainant’s willingness may support quashing in appropriate cases, but offences with serious societal or State implications cannot be quashed merely on that basis.

Section 340(2) BNS concerns fraudulent or dishonest use as genuine of a forged document or electronic record; Sections 353(1)(b) and 353(2) address specified false statements or reports bearing the requisite intent or likelihood of public alarm or inter-group enmity; and Section 352 concerns intentional insult intended or known to be likely to provoke a breach of the peace.

The Court considered the complaint independently of the complainant’s subsequent position, recognising that a prosecution relating to alleged effects on public order could not be terminated solely by the complainant’s concession.

The complaint did not allege that the petitioner used a forged document or electronic record, identify a specific false statement, allege the requisite intent or likelihood concerning public alarm or inter-group enmity, or allege an intentional insult aimed at provoking a breach of peace.

Accordingly, even if the allegations were accepted in their entirety, they did not disclose the ingredients of the charged offences.

The Court made no finding on the truth or falsity of the broadcast.

It quashed Cyber Crime Police Station, Hooghly Rural Case No. 6 of 2024 and all proceedings arising from it; any bail bond furnished by the petitioner in connection with the case was discharged.

The Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the jurisdictional magistrate.