KISHORE BALKRISHNA NAND [Appellant(s)] Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. [Respondent(s)]
(CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2291 OF 2011)
(2JB, J.B. PARDIWALA and MANOJ MISRA JJ.)
Facts: The present appeal is at the instance of the original accused summoned for the offence of defamation punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code 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.
Issue: Whether the allegations made in the complaint addressed to the SDM make out the offence under Section 500 IPC or not?
Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellants: 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.
Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondents: Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande
This is a case of a private complaint. The State has hardly any role to play. Still learned the counsel assisted the court on the question of law.
Held: The court allowed the present appeal and held that, “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.”
