ANALYSIS:
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties andhaving gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is whether the allegations made in the complaint addressed to the SDM make out the offence under Section 500 IPC or not?
Section 499 of the IPC reads, thus:
“499. Defamation.—Whoever, by words either spoken or
intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations,
makes or publishes any imputation concerning
any person intending to harm, or knowing or
having reason to believe that such imputation will
harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except
in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that
person.”
Eighth Exception to Section 499, to which reliance has been
placed by the learned counsel, reads as under:
“Eighth Exception.—Accusation preferred in good faith
to authorised person.—It is not defamation to prefer
in good faith an accusation against any person to any
of those who have lawful authority over that person
with respect to the subject-matter of accusation.”
The word “good faith” has been defined in Section 52 of the IPC
to mean:
“52. ‘Good faith’.—Nothing is said to be done or believed
in ‘good faith’ which is done or believed
without due care and attention.”
We are of the view that no case is made out to put the
appellant to trial for the alleged offence. There is no defamation
as such.
Exception 8 to Section 499 clearly indicates that it is not a defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with regard to the subject-matter of accusation. Even otherwise by perusing the allegations made in the complaint, we are satisfied that no case for defamation has been made out.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2291 OF 2011
KISHORE BALKRISHNA NAND Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
Citation: 2023 INSC 675 .
Dated: AUGUST 02, 2023.
The respondent No.2 (original complainant) although served
with the notice issued by this Court, yet has chosen not to remain
present before this Court, either in-person or through an advocate,
and oppose this appeal.
This is an appeal at the instance of the original accused
summoned for the offence of defamation punishable under Section 500
of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”) and is directed
against the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
Nagpur Bench, dated 03.02.2010 in Criminal Writ Petition No.676 of
2009, by which the High Court rejected the writ petition filed by
the appellant – Kishore Balkrishna Nand and thereby declined to
quash the order of issue of process by the Magistrate for the
offence of defamation.
It appears from the materials on record that the appellant
herein lodged a complaint in writing addressed to the Sub-
1
Divisional Magistrate (for short, “the SDM”) stating that the
respondent no.2 herein (original complainant) had put up a shop by
encroaching upon some land. In the complaint. the appellant is
said to have further stated that such shop put up by the
complainant was creating nuisance, as many anti-social elements and
road romeos had started visiting the said shop and were creating
all sorts of problems.
The SDM upon receipt of the complaint dated 25.01.2002 filed
by the appellant issued notice to the complainant. While the
proceedings before the SDM were pending, the complainant thought
fit to lodge a private complaint in the Court of the Judicial
Magistrate, Worora, Chandrapur, State of Maharashtra for the
offence of defamation. The learned Magistrate took cognizance on
the said complaint and issued process. The cognizance for the
offence of defamation was taken by the Magistrate on the basis of
the averments said to have been made by the appellant in his
written complaint addressed to the SDM, referred to above.
As the record reveals, the appellant thereafter moved an
application before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate with a
prayer that the order of issue of process be recalled. The
Magistrate concerned recalled the order. The complainant being
aggrieved by such order of recall passed by the Magistrate,
challenged the same before the Sessions Court by filing a revision
application. The revision application was allowed and the order
2
recalling the order of issue of process was quashed. In such
circumstances, the appellant went before the High Court. In the
High Court, the appellant thought fit not to press his petition and
withdrew the same.
Eight years thereafter the appellant thought fit to challenge
the original order of issue of process before the High Court. The
High Court without entering into the merits of the matter, declined
to entertain such petition only on the ground of delay.
In such circumstances referred to above, the appellant is here
before this Court with the present appeal.
Mr. Anshuman Ashok, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant vehemently submitted that the learned Magistrate
committed a serious error in taking cognizance on a complaint,
which fails to disclose commission of any offence. According to
him even if the entire case, as put up by the complainant, is
accepted or believed to be true, none of the ingredients to
constitute the offence of defamation as defined under Section 499
of the IPC and made punishable under Section 500 of the IPC are
disclosed. He pointed out that his client (appellant), in good
faith, brought to the notice of the SDM that the complainant had
encroached upon some portion of the land and had put up a shop
which was creating nuisance. This, according to the learned
counsel, would not constitute any offence of defamation. He
submitted that even otherwise since the alleged defamatory words or
3
statements are said to have been made in a complaint made in
writing addressed to a public authority like SDM and not made
public, the same would not attract the rigours of Section 499 of
the IPC.
In such circumstances as above, the learned counsel prayed
that there being merit in his appeal, the same be allowed and the
criminal proceedings be quashed.
We also heard Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, the learned counsel
appearing for the State. However, this is a case of a private
complaint. The State has hardly any role to play. Still learned
the counsel assisted us on the question of law.
ANALYSIS:
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
having gone through the materials on record, the only question that
falls for our consideration is whether the allegations made in the
complaint addressed to the SDM make out the offence under Section
500 IPC or not?
Section 499 of the IPC reads, thus:
“499. Defamation.—Whoever, by words either spoken or
intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations,
makes or publishes any imputation concerning
any person intending to harm, or knowing or
having reason to believe that such imputation will
harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except
in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that
person.”
4
Eighth Exception to Section 499, to which reliance has been
placed by the learned counsel, reads as under:
“Eighth Exception.—Accusation preferred in good faith
to authorised person.—It is not defamation to prefer
in good faith an accusation against any person to any
of those who have lawful authority over that person
with respect to the subject-matter of accusation.”
The word “good faith” has been defined in Section 52 of the IPC
to mean:
“52. ‘Good faith’.—Nothing is said to be done or believed
in ‘good faith’ which is done or believed
without due care and attention.”
We are of the view that no case is made out to put the
appellant to trial for the alleged offence. There is no defamation
as such.
Exception 8 to Section 499 clearly indicates that it is not a
defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person
to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with
regard to the subject-matter of accusation. Even otherwise by
perusing the allegations made in the complaint, we are satisfied
that no case for defamation has been made out.
In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that the
appeal deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The impugned
order passed by the High Court is hereby set aside. As a
consequence of the same, the original order passed by the
Magistrate issuing summons, is also hereby quashed and set aside.
The criminal proceedings in the form of Criminal Case No.247 of
2002 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Worora, Chandrapur, Maharashtra stand terminated.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
.................J.
(J.B. PARDIWALA)
..................J.
(MANOJ MISRA)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 02, 2023.
No comments:
Post a Comment