Jharkhand High Court
Md. Hasamuddin Khan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 April, 2018
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 60 of 2004
Md. Hasamuddin Khan .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sanghmitra Roy ... Opposite Parties
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
For the State : None
For the O.P. No. 2 : None
---
Order No. 09 Dated 23rd April, 2018
Heard Mr. A. K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Nobody appears either for the State or for the opposite party No. 2.
In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 08.12.2003 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Complaint Petition Case No. 1328 of 2003, whereby and whereunder, cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable u/s 500/ 511 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case arises out of a complaint case instituted by the opposite party No. 2, in which it was stated that the complainant is the daughter of Sri B.S.P. Roy, who is a retired Joint Commissioner of commercial Taxes, Govt. of Jharkhand, who was also the President of the District Badminton Association, Dhanbad. It has been alleged that the complaint was a student of Law College, Dhanbad and she belongs to a respectable family and her grandfather was a freedom fighter. Allegation has been levelled that the complaint was appearing in LLB Part II Examination of Vinoba Bhave University since 21.08.2003, which was being held at R.S. More College, Gobindppur. The elder sister of the complainant was also appearing in the said examination and she was given a seat in the same hall. There was a long distance between the seats of both the sisters and allegation has further been levelled that the elder sister of the complaint was expelled by the principal of the College on 22.08.2003. The complainant however completed the papers of LLB Part-II examination. News item was published in daily Newspaper Prabhat Khabar on 06.09.2003 in which according to her imputations were cast upon her as well as her family and according to the complaint the same was an attempt made 2. by the petitioner to defame her which led to institution of a case u/s 500/ 511 I.P.C in which upon conducting enquiry, cognizance was taken for the offence punishable u/s 500/ 511 of the Indian Penal Code.
It has been stated by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the news item which was subject matter of the complaint petition does not contain the name of the complainant. Learned senior counsel further submits that according to the learned court below merely an attempt was made to defame the complainant which led the learned court to take cognizance for offence punishable u/s 500/ 511 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned senior counsel further submits that the sister of the opposite party No. 2 was expelled on account of taking resort to unfair means. It has been stated that for making out a case of defamation it must be visualized from the allegation that it was an attempt of defamation and in the present case the complaint petition does not make out a case that it was an attempt of defamation made by the petitioner. Since no prima facie case of defamation has been made out, the entire criminal proceeding deserves to be quashed and set aside.
On the consideration of the contents of the complaint petition as well as the arguments advanced on behalf of learned senior counsel for the petitioner it is an admitted fact that in the news report the name of the complaint had never been taken, Newspaper cutting merely reveals that the sister of the girl who had resorted to unfair means was also sitting in the examination hall. The report therefore does not seem to have cast accusation upon the complainant that the petitioner in order to defame the complainant had got published the said news item in the newspaper. Section 499 I.P.C. deals with defamation and same read as under:-
"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 expected, to defame that person."
Explanation to Section 499 reveals the various contexts which may relate to defamation. The allegation made in the complaint petition does not reveal that any imputation was caused upon the complainant in the 3. estimation of others, which had lowered the moral or intellectual character of the complainant. It also appears that the paper publication was made on 05.09.2003 and the complaint case was instituted on 10.10.2003. The proximity of the publication of the report and the subsequent filing of the complaint petition also is of significant importance as the complainant if at all was aggrieved or for that matter construed the allegation made in the complaint of making imputation against her family, the complaint petition could have been filed earlier and not after more than a month. Even otherwise the newspaper report which has been published on 05.09.2003 is not to an extent it would indicate that there was an attempt made by the petitioner to defame the complainant.
In the case of Manmohan Kalia v. Yash reported in (1984) 3 SCC 499 while considering the doctrine of innuendo it was held that the defamatory allegation was made in respect of a person though not named yet so fully described that the allegation would refer to that person and that person alone.
However, as indicated above, the newspaper report which forms the subject matter of the complaint petition does not cast aspersion upon the complainant in order to defame her as mere innuendo cannot be proved by inferential evidence which may be capable of two possibilities.
Thus the fact circumstances enumerated above, would lead this court to conclude that the complaint case is an abuse of process of court and continuance of criminal prosecution will lead to miscarriage of justice.
In view of above, this application is allowed and the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 08.12.2003 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Complaint Petition Case No. 1328 of 2003, whereby and whereunder, cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable u/s 500/ 511 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby quashed and set aside.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) MK