Allahabad High Court
Rajul Maheshwaari And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 February, 2020
Author: Sudhir Agarwal
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 34 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11312 of 2006 Applicant :- Rajul Maheshwaari And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Bhan Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate, B.R.Singh, Mahabir Singh Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for State of U.P. None has appeared on behalf of respondent-2 though name of Sri B.R. Singh, Advocate is shown as counsel for respondent-2. Since it is an old matter of 2006, hence, I am not inclined to defer this application and proceed to decide the same after hearing aforesaid counsels.
2. Applicants have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 426 of 2003, under Sections 500 and 501 IPC, Police Station Sakaldeeha, District Chandauli.
3. A news item was published in a daily newspaper "Amar Ujala" dated 13.12.2002 and it reads as under:-
^^voS/k dCts ls jks"k ldyMhgk ¼pankSyh½ rglhy {ks= ds rsuqvV xkao esa iwoZ xzke iz/kku }kjk xzkelHkk dh tehu ij dCtk fd, tkus rFkk /kks[kk/kMh ls Hkwfe dks vius uke djk fy, tkus ls xzkeh.kksa esa jks"k O;kIr gSA xkao ds miiz/kku eq[rkj vgen] ';ke lqUnj] ykyrk jk;] eqds'k ikaMs;] NsNh jke] egsUnz ;kno] lkxj iztkifr] panzthr] f'kodkar vkfn xzkeh.kksa us iwoZ iz/kku uan fd'kksj ikaMs; ij xzke lHkk dh tehu gM+ius dk vkjksi yxkrs gq, ftyk iz'kklu ls bl fn'kk esa mfpr dkjZokbZ fd, tkus dh ekax dh gSA** "Resentment over illegal possession The residents of the village - Tenuat in Tehsil - Sakaldiha, Chandauli, are annoyed over the act of Gram Sabha land having been possessed by the former Gram Pradhan. The villagers, such as Mukhtar Ahmed, deputy Gram Pradhan, Shaym Sunder, Lalta Rai, Mukesh Pandey, Chhechhi Ram, Mahendra Yadav, Sagar Prajapati, Chandrjeet, Shivkant and others, while alleging the former Gram Pradhan Nand Kishore Pandey to have taken Gram Sabha land in his possession, has demanded necessary action in this regard from the district administration."
(English Translation by Court)
4. Thereafter, opposite party-2 filed Criminal Complaint against applicants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate/ Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandauli which reads as under:-
^^[kqyklk c;ku nkok ;g gS fd eqLrxhl Åaps dqy dk vPNs O;fDr ,oa vPNs lkekftd Lrj dk O;fDr gS ftldk lekt esa bTtr gSA rFkk xzke iapk;r ruqvVdk iwoZ iz/kku Hkh yxkrkj nks ckj jg pqdk gSA vkSj eqLrxhl dh cjBh esa xkVj fles.V esfMdy] ,oa ijpwu dh nqdku gS rFkk eqLrxhl ds edku esa cSad gSA fnukad 13-12-2002 bZ0 dks lqcg djhc 10 cts fnu tc eqLrxhl ldyMhg eq[; iDdh lM+d frjkgs ij iku dh nqdku gfjgj ds ikl igqapk rks ogkWa ij fot; dqekj ik.Ms; feys tks lekpkj&i= vej mtkyk fnukad 13-12-2002 bZ dks fy;s gq, Fks rFkk eqLrxhl dks ns[krs gh mijksDr O;fDr;ksa us dgk fd nsf[k;s bl v[kckj ds i`"B la[;k 13 ij vki ds f[kykQ D;k fudyk gS eqLrxhl ml lekpkj&i= dks i<+k ftlesa voS/k dCts ls jks"k gS gsfMax nsdj mDr lekpkj Nik gSA eqLrxhl ds eku izfr"Bk dks lekt esa fxjkus ds fu;r ls eqLrxhl ds pUnz nq'euku ds lkftl esa gksdj mDr eqfYte ua0 1 o 2 }kjk tkucw>dj fudkyk x;k gS tcfd mDr lekpkj i= esa mDr Nih [kcj fcydqy >wBk o cscqfu;kn gS eqLrxhl us u rks vius uke ls dksbZ xkaolHkk fdlh Hkh Hkwfe dk iV~Vk djk;k gS vFkok u gh dksbZ xkao lHkk dh Hkwfe gMik gh gS vkSj ugha xkaolHkk dh Hkwfe ij voS/k dCtk fd;k gSA reke vyx cxy esa [kM+s cgqr ls yksx eqLrxhl ds ckjs esa vkil esa ppkZ Hkh dj jgs Fks rFkk eLrxhl us ;g vuqHko fd;k fd mDr vieku tud lekpkj i<+us ds i'pkr ogka ij mifLFkr yksxksa esa eqLrxhl ds izfr tks Hkkouk mRiUu gqbZ mlls eqLrxhl ds lEeku o izfr"Bk fxjk gS eSaus mDr fot; dqekj ik.Ms; vkfn ls dgk fd ;g foydqy >wBk lekpkj eq>s cnuke o csbTtr lekt esa djus ds fu;r ls tkucw>dj fudyok;k ,oa fudkyk x;k gS eqLrxhl vius ?kj vk;k rFkk mDr lekpkj esa izdkf'kr fd;s x;s O;fDr;ksa eq[rkj vgen vkfn ls Hkh iwNk rks mUgksaus dgk fd blds ckor ge dks xkao dh dksbZ tkudkjh ugha gS eqLrxhl us vius vf/koDrk }kjk mDr vfHk;qDr ua0 1 o 2 dk fn0 23-12-2002 bZ0 jftLVMZ uksfVl tfj;s Mkd Hkstok;k fd os yksx fdu&fdu O;fDr;ksa ds fyf[kr vFkok tokuh dFku ds vk/kkj ij eqLrxhl ds fo:) fcydqy >wBk ,oa vieku tud mDR lekpkj tku&cw>dj mDr lekpkj&i= esa izdkf'kr fd;s gSaA ijUrq dksbZ Hkh tcko vkt red eqLrxhl dks ugha feyk eqfYte ua0 1 o 2 us tkucw>dj eqLrxhl dh lkekftd izfr"Bk fxjkus ,oa csbTtr djus dh fu;r ls lekpkj izdkf'kr fd;k gS eqLrxhl dk lEeku o izfr"Bk mDRk lekpkj ls cxy ds fe=ksa esa rFkk fj'rsnkjksa esa fxjk gS vkSj eqLrxhl dj vkfFkZd uqdlku Hkh gqvk gSA bl izdkj eqfYteku dkuwu dh n`f"V ls vijk/k fd;s gSa ftlds ckor mUgsa nf.Mr fd;k tkuk U;k;laxr gSA vr% Jheku th ls fuosnu gS fd eqfYteku dks vUrxZr nQk 500 o 501 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk tfj;s foyk tekur fxjQ~rkjh vf/ki= ryc Qjekdj ifj{k.kksijkUr nf.Mr djus dh d`ik djsa] rkfd U;k; gksA** "In the opening statement, it is claimed that the complainant is a good natured person of a noble family, enjoying a good social status and commanding respect in the society. He has been elected Gram Pradhan of the Village - Tenuat for two times. The complainant also owns a shop of girder and cement, and medical and grocery stores at Barathi. From the house of the complainant, a bank is operating its business activities. On 13.12.2002 at around 10:00 a.m., the complainant reached Harihar's betel shop at Sakaldih trisection, where he met Vijay Kumar Pandey who was holding an Amar Ujala daily dated 13.12.2002 in his hand. Seeing the complainant, the aforesaid persons stated, "Look, what is published at page number 13 against you." The complainant read the news-story under the heading 'Public resentment over illegal possession' published in the newspaper. With the intention to tarnish the image of the complainant in the society, accused nos. 1 and 2, inimical to him, in collusion with some persons, have deliberately got the aforesaid news story published in the newspaper. The aforesaid news story published in the newspaper is utterly false and groundless. The complainant has neither got any lease deed of any Gram Sabha land executed in his favour nor grabbed the Gram Sabha land nor taken illegal possession over it. Many persons standing around were talking about the complainant with one another. The complainant realised that on reading the derogatory news story in the newspaper people have developed feelings antithetical to the complainant and detrimental to his social status and prestige. I told Vijay Kumar Pandey and others that the aforementioned news story is patently false, and has been published to tarnish his reputation and defame him in the society.
The complainant came to his house and made inquiries from Mukhtar Ahmad and others as well whose names were published. They stated to have no knowledge in this respect. On 23.12.2000, the complainant sent a notice to the said accused nos. 1 and 2 through registered post seeking information as to which persons have, by way of their written or oral statements, got absolutely false and insulting news published in the said newspaper against him but the complainant has received no reply till date. The accused nos. 1 and 2 have intentionally got the said news published in the newspaper with an intent to lower complainant's image in the society and to insult him. From the said news, the respect and reputation of the complainant in the eyes of close friends and relatives has diminished and he has suffered a financial loss as well. In this way, the accused have committed an act which amounts to an offence in the eyes of law, for which it would be justifiable to punish them.
Hence, it is requested that the accused, by way of serving a non-bailable warrant, be punished for the offence u/s 500, 501 IPC after trial in order to meet the ends of justice."
(English Translation by Court)
5. Magistrate after recording statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses, Mukesh Pandey son of Sri Daulat Pandey as PW-1, Harihar Pandey son of Late Ramadhar Pandey as PW-2, Kanhaiya son of Late Rampati Ram as PW-3, Mukhtar Ahmad son of Naim Ansari as PW-4, under Section 202 Cr.P.C., has summoned applicants under Sections 500 and 501 IPC for trial. Order dated 03.06.2003 summoning applicants reads as under:-
^^ifjoknh }kjk izLrqr ifjokn ifjoknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dks lquk rFkk ifjokn dk lE;d voyksdu fd;kA /kkjk 200 n0iz0la0 ds rgr ifjoknh us Lo;a dks ,oa /kkjk 202 n0iz0ala0 rgr ih0MCyw0&1 eqds'k ik.Ms; ih0MCyw0&2 gfjgj ik.Ms; ih0MCyw0&3 dUgS;k ih0MCyw0&4 eq[rkj dks ijhf{kr djk;k gSA blds vfrfjDr ifjokn ds lkFk layXu nLrkosth lk{;ksa dk Hkh voyksdu fd;kA vfHk;qDrx.k 1 yxk;r 2 ds fo:) izFke n`"V;k /kkjk 500] 501 Hkk0 n0 la0 dk vijk/k izdV gksrk gSA vr% vfHk;qDrx.k dks fnukad 25-6-03 ds fy, tfj, leu ryc fd;k tkrk gSA ifjoknh vko';d iSjoh ,d lIrkg esa djsaA** "Heard learned counsel for the complainant on the complaint filed by the complainant and duly perused the file. The complainant has examined himself u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and has examined PW-1 Mukesh Pandey, PW-2 Harihar Pandey, PW-3 Kanhaiya and PW-4 Mukhtar u/s 201 Cr.P.C. Apart from this, I have also perused the documentary evidences appended to the complaint. It appears that a case u/s 500, 501 IPC is prima facie made out against the accused 1 to 2. Hence, the accused are summoned for 25.06.2003.
The complainant to do necessary pairvi within a week."
(English Translation by Court)
6. It is contended that news item does not make any allegation on the part of applicants but it only record an incident which actually had taken place and this fact has also not been disputed in the complaint. Complaint says that there was no such encroachment or unauthorized possession of land and allegation of fraud is baseless but in newspaper, incident which has taken place was reported and nothing else, therefore, no offence under Sections 500 and 501 IPC is made out.
7. From the perusal of allegations contained in complaint as also the submission advanced by learned counsel for applicant, I find that Section 500 IPC is not at all attracted in the case in hand and, therefore, impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.
8. Section 499 IPC provides as to what is "defamation" and reads 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." (Emphasis added)
9. There are four Explanations and ten Exceptions in Section 499 IPC which I have not quoted.
10. Explanations covers some shades of the words, spoken or intended to be read etc., which may amount to "defamation" while exceptions give the illustrations of what will not constitute "defamation". To be more particular, Explanations-1, 2 and 3 provide certain aspects which would amount to defamation and Explanation-4 explains the words "will harm the reputation of such person" which is a necessary and integral part of Section 499 IPC so as to constitute defamation. Offence of defamation, therefore, consists of three essential ingredients. (i) making or publishing an imputation concerning a person; (ii) such imputation must have been made by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations; and, (iii) the said imputation must have been made with the intention of harming or with the knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned.
11. Thus, to bring an offence under Section 500 IPC, prosecution has to show, (a) that an imputation was made consisting of words spoken or written or intended to be read or made by signs or by visible representations; (b) that the imputation concerned the complainant i.e. the person defamed and the person who has come forward qua complainant alleging that defamation concerned him, are identical persons; (c) that the accused made or published the incriminating imputation; and, (d) that the intention behind making and publishing words causing harm to the reputation of such person.
12. Offence punishable under Section 500 IPC, therefore, is to protect a fundamental right of a person i.e. 'reputation' which is part of right to enjoyment of life and liberty and property having an ancient origin as explained by Supreme Court in Smt. Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry and another 1989 (1) SCC 494 wherein Court reproduced the observations from D.F. Marion v. Davis 10 55 ALR 171 as under:-
"The right to enjoyment of a private reputation, unassailed by malicious slander is of ancient origin, and is necessary to human society. A good reputation is an element of personal security, and is protected by the Constitution equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty and property. " (emphasis added)
13. In Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay vs. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni and Others (1983) 1 SCC 124, Court said that "right to reputation" is a facet of right to life of a citizen under Article 21 of Constitution.
14. In Vishwanath S/o Sitaram Agrawal v. Sau. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal 2012 (6) SCALE 190, Court dealt with the aspect of "reputation" though in a different context, and said:-
"........reputation which is not only the salt of life, but also the purest treasure and the most precious perfume of life. It is extremely delicate and a cherished value this side of the grave. It is a revenue generator for the present as well as for the posterity. " (emphasis added)
15. In Kishore Samrite Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2013 (2) SCC 398, Court said:-
"The term 'person' includes not only the physical body and members but also every bodily sense and personal attribute among which is the reputation a man has acquired. Reputation can also be defined to be good name, the credit, honour or character which is derived from a favourable public opinion or esteem, and character by report. The right to enjoyment of a good reputation is a valuable privilege of ancient origin and necessary to human society. 'Reputation' is an element of personal security and is protected by Constitution equally with the right to enjoyment of life, liberty and property. Although 'character' and 'reputation' are often used synonymously, but these terms are distinguishable. 'Character' is what a man is and 'reputation' is what he is supposed to be in what people say he is. 'Character' depends on attributes possessed and 'reputation' on attributes which others believe one to possess. The former signifies reality and the latter merely what is accepted to be reality at present. "
(emphasis added)
16. Offence under Section 500 IPC, therefore, covers a very important aspect involving a person's right to life and liberty, hence when a complaint is made that a person's reputation has been jeopardized, and Magistrate, if has taken cognizance in the matter by initiating proceedings, Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution should not interfere lightly unless a clear case of abuse of process of law is made out. I, therefore, would examine the matter in question, whether a case of abuse of process has been made out or not.
17. A news item publishes that there was a demand raised by certain villagers from District Administration to take action against Ex-Pradhan Nand Kishor Pandey i.e. Opposite Party-2 for his alleged encroachment on Gram Sabha land. In the entire complaint, there is no averment that no such demand was raised by persons whose names are given in news item but what he has said is that he made enquiry from Mukhtar Ahmad and others who said that they have no information of the village but whether any such demand for action was made with District Administration or not is not denied or disputed. A newspaper gives news item of some incident or happening. He refers to such incident and happening and not correctness what is stated in such incident or happening.
18. In the circumstances, I am of the view that allegations contained in the complaint, even if taken to be true read with news item, it cannot be said that ingredients of Section 499 IPC are satisfied so as to attract Sections 500 and 501 IPC in the case in hand.
19. In view thereof, application is allowed. Proceedings of Complaint Case No. 426 of 2003, under Sections 500 and 501 IPC, Police Station Sakaldeeha, District Chandauli, are hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 6.2.2020 Siddhant Sahu