Calcutta High Court quashes criminal defamation case against TV editor and reporter over a recorded phone call
A singer filed a criminal defamation complaint after a news channel circulated the audio of a reporter's phone call in which he swore. An Alipore magistrate summoned the channel's editor and the reporter. The Calcutta High Court quashed the case on 16 September 2026, holding that reproducing the complainant's own words is not an imputation.
This page records what the cited court records and reports say happened. Findings belong to the court or authority that made them; this register adds none of its own. Names of private individuals are withheld unless a naming gate clears them.
How we verify →Complaint Case No. 1286 of 2022 stands quashed against the editor and the reporter.
What happened
LiveLaw reported that a reporter of a Bengali news channel called a singer on 27 January 2022 for a reaction, that the singer responded with expletives and later apologised on Facebook, and that the channel circulated the audio.
The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore took cognisance on 19.05.2022 and the Judicial Magistrate, 9th Court issued summons on 14.07.2022 against the editor and the reporter.
The High Court held that a faithful reproduction of the complainant's own words, without an independent imputation by the accused, does not meet the ingredients of defamation, and that no independent witness said the complainant's reputation was lowered.
The High Court also found the cognizance order was passed on a printed pro forma and that the mandatory inquiry for accused living outside the magistrate's jurisdiction was not held, and quashed the proceedings against both.
What the record says
“the continuation of Complaint Case No. 1286 of 2022 against both petitioners is an egregious abuse of the process of law and a travesty of justice.”
CRR 4680 of 2022 with CRR 842 of 2023, Calcutta High Court, order dated 16.09.2026 — read the full text
Punished for a freedom
Journalists were prosecuted for criminal defamation for publishing a public figure's own recorded words, with no allegation of fabrication or harm beyond reputation.
What we could not confirm
The complainant did not appear and the High Court heard the matter ex parte.