Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Babul Supriyo vs Unknown on 28 April, 2017
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi
1
C.R.R. 903 of 2017
27 28.04.2017With SB Ct. No. 28 C.R.A.N. 1771 of 2017 + C.R.A.N. 1806 of 2017 In the matter of : Babul Supriyo Mr. Y.Z.Dastoor Mr. Sandipan Ganguly Mr. S. Sharma Ms. P. Tiberwal Mr. Saptarshi Banerjee .... For the Petitioner Mr. Saswata G. Mukherjee Ms. A. Sinha Mr. S. Banerjee ..... For the State Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee Ms. A. Perveen .... For the applicant Mr. B. Mukherjee .... For the O.P. Opposite party no. 2 has prayed for vacating the interim order, while petitioner prays for extension of interim order.
I have heard both the parties. Prima facie, I am of the opinion that imputations do not disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences under section 509 of Indian Penal Code. It is contended that the petitioner has subsequently made further imputations against the opposite party. It appears that subsequent imputations were made by others on the social media. Accordingly the interim order is extended for a period of six weeks after the ensuing summer vacation.
Application for vacation, however, shall be treated as an affidavit of opposition to the revision petition and the matter shall come up under the heading 'Contested Application, four weeks after the ensuing summer vacation. Reply, if any, to the application for vacating which is treated as an affidavit of opposition be filed on or before the next date of hearing.
Liberty to pray for extension, modification, variation and/or vacating the interim order upon notice to the other side.
The application in C.R.A.N. 1771 of 2017 is accordingly disposed of.
(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) 2