Being Tagged In Space Of Comments On Social Media At Instance Of Other Person Necessarily Doesn’t Confer Liability On Tagged Person: Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court, Jalpaiguri Bench has held that being tagged in space of comments on social media at the instance of the other person necessarily does not confer any liability on the person being tagged.
A Single Bench of Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay observed, “The allegations against the petitioner to have been directly involved in the commission of alleged offences are not substantially prevalent in the case record to indict him. Being tagged in the space of comments on social media at the instance of any other person necessarily does not confer any liability or responsibility on the person being tagged with or express unanimity of the comment or its essence thereof constructively. The complaint presupposes the occurrence of a riot but did not state any incident of such occurrence as an offshoot of such Facebook post.”
The Bench said it is imprudent to subject any person to face trial in a criminal case based on mere assumptions and suspicion in the absence of criminal intent or ulterior motive for accomplishing any wrongful act.
Advocate Avrojyoti Das appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Advocate Aditi Shankar Chakraborty appeared on behalf of the State.
In this case, a case under Sections 504/505/506/120 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 was instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the defacto complainant alleging to have noticed certain comments on the Facebook profiles of some persons which were “spreading communal hatred and violence amongst the people of society,” which according to him were “unauthentic, uncalled for and unwarranted.”
The petitioner filed a plea seeking the court's direction to quash the pending aforesaid case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, an Assistant Teacher of a school by profession was falsely implicated due to rival political ideologies with an ulterior motive of wrecking vengeance on the frivolous ground.
The High Court after hearing the arguments of the counsel noted, “The petitioner seemed to have been tagged in the Facebook post in dispute allegedly uploaded by another co-accused. The documents in the case diary did not disclose any comment of the petitioner on the Facebook post to have pioneered religious hatred amongst different communities. Moreover, subsequent effect of the Facebook posts as alleged to have resulted into an overwhelming negative impact on the society at large with violent outburst is absent.”
The Court further said that allowing the petitioner to face trial would result into abuse of the process of law.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the plea and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.
Cause Title- Protip Roy Basunia v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
