Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The learned S.D.J.M.(S)-I, Kamrup (M), Guwahati allowed the prayer of the complainant and further, directed the Officer-in-Charge of Dispur Police Station to register a case on the allegations mentioned in the complaint and investigate the matter fairly and to submit the Final Form at the earliest as stated above.

6. Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the compact disc containing the recorded video of the alleged speech in vernacular Assamese, which is annexed to the instant petition as Annexure-6 in printed script having not disclosed any cognizable offence did not justify registration of a case under Sections 153 and 153-A of the IPC at all when verified with the contents of the whole text of the speech in question. Mr. Saikia further submitted that on a bare perusal of the impugned order, dated 05.03.2022, it is noticed that the learned S.D.J.M.(S)-I, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati neither appreciated the video clip nor perused the printed Page No.# 6/30 transcript of the speech before arriving at the conclusion that the speech in question disclosed cognizable offences. Mr. Saikia submitted that in the first F.I.R., dated 29.12.2021 lodged before the Officer-in-Charge of Dispur P.S. as well as in the application under Section 154(3) filed before the Deputy Commissioner of Police (East), Guwahati on 12.01.2022 did not contain the transcript/CD/pen drive of the speech in question. Thus, Mr. Saikia submitted that the opinion arrived at by the learned Court below to the effect that the Complaint Petition prima facie disclosed commission of cognizable offences was apparently an incorrect and perverse finding due to the simple reason that the learned S.D.J.M.(S)-I had not gone through the detail text of the speech delivered by the proforma respondent No.2. Referring to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Mr. Saikia submitted that the learned S.D.J.M.(S)-I, Kamrup (M), Guwahati wrongly observed that the veracity of the allegations is not something which can be enquired prior to the registration of the F.I.R. inasmuch as such proposition is against the settled law on the subject propounded in a catena of decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Mr. Saikia submitted that the complaint, if taken in its face value and read in its entirety, even then no offence under any of the provisions of the IPC has been disclosed against the proforma respondent No. 2. Mr. Saikia submitted that the respondent No.1 has not challenged the translated printed version of the speech vide Annexure-6 in any manner and as such, the same may be accepted as true and undisputed.