Karnataka High Court
Mrs Tara Ajai Singh vs Mr R P Sharma on 10 October, 2012
Equivalent citations: 2013 CRI. L. J. (NOC) 386 (KAR.), 2013 (2) AKR 35
Author: H N Nagamohan Das
Bench: H.N. Nagamohan Das
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS
CRIMINAL PETITION No.898/2012
BETWEEN :
Mrs.TARA AJAI SINGH
W/O AJAI KUMAR SINGH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
No.205, METROPOLITAN 45,
HAINES ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 005. ..PETITIONER
(By Sri.H.M.MURALIDHAR, ADV.)
AND :
Mr.R.P.SHARMA
S/O LATE M.P.SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
PLANNING & MODERNIZATION
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,
NRUPATUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001. ..RESPONDENT
(By Sri K.SUMAN, ADV.)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 482 CR.P.C.BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONER PRAYING THAT TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.08.11 IN C.C.No.27030/11
ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ACMM, BANGALORE VIDE
ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, H.N.NAGAMOHAN
DAS. J, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING;
ORDER
In this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 3.8.2011 in C.C.No.27030/2011 passed by the VIII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore registering the case against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 500 IPC and issuing summons.
2. Petitioner is an IAS officer and retired as Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Karnataka. Respondent is senior IPS Officer, presently working as Inspector General of Police (planning and 3 modernization). Petitioner while working as Principal Secretary to the Government, wrote a letter on 09.02.2007 to the then Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka. The relevant portion of this letter for the purpose of this case is as under:
I have functioned in DPAR for three-and-half years without any allegation against me from any source and the records would speak for themselves in the cases of Sri.R.P.Sharma and his wife also. I may state that by the grace of God, my integrity and reputation have been without a blemish throughout my career spanning 32 years. It is a pity that I have to suffer the indignities from Sri R.P.Sharma whose integrity and reputation may have to be judged by the circumstances under which disciplinary action had been initiated against him by the Government in the past. Although he has stated that I have defamed him and sought permission to prosecute me it is he who has defamed me by making false allegations before Courts and before my colleagues and superiors from 2003 onwards.
(underlining is by me) 4
3. Respondent contends that the petitioner has got personal animosity against him and suffered various humiliations, indignity and defamation in the hands of petitioner. Petitioner with an intention to harm the reputation of the respondent had been engaged in malicious campaign for the last many years. In furtherance of and with a motive to scandalize, defame and touching the character and conduct of the respondent, petitioner had written the above letter. On account of the allegations made in the above letter, the reputation of the petitioner became a laughing stock among large number of people. Therefore, the respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.PC in PCR No.3444/2010 on the file of the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 500, 501 and 502 IPC. The jurisdictional Magistrate had taken cognizance of the case, recorded the sworn statement and passed an order on 02.11.2010 dismissing the complaint. Respondent questioned this order of dismissal in Crl.R.P.No.387/2010. The revisional court vide order 5 dated 24.05.2011 set aside the order of Magistrate and remanded the matter for fresh disposal. After remand the Magistrate has passed the impugned order issuing summons to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is before this court questioning the impugned order passed by the Magistrate.
4. Sri H.M.Muralidhar, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the letter dated 9.2.2007 was a confidential letter addressed and sent only to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka and the same was not sent to any other person. Even in this letter factual information is furnished and no defamatory allegations are made against the respondent. Even this letter written by the petitioner was by way of reply to the petition given by the respondent on 12.05.2006 and 12.07.2006 making personal allegations against the petitioner. The allegations made in the letter dated 09.02.2007 even if they are taken as true do not constitute an offence as defined under 6 Section 499 IPC. The intention of the respondent in filing the complaint is only to harass and intimidate the petitioner. This is nothing but abuse of process of law. Therefore the proceedings before the Magistrate are liable to be quashed.
5. Per contra, Sri Suman, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the petitioner is engaged continuously in defaming the character of the respondent. The allegations made in the letter referred to above do constitute an offence for the offences punishable under Section 500 IPC. He supports the impugned order passed by the Magistrate. Reliance is placed on the following decisions:
i) AIR 1971 SC 1388
Balraj Khanna v. Moti Ram
ii) (2010) 6 SCC 243
Jeffrey J.Diermeier v. State of West Bengal
iii) AIR 1970 1372 Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab 7
iv) (2009) 1 SCC 101 M.A.Rumugam vs. Kittu @ Krishnamurthy
v) 1985 Crl.LJ 1309 (Madras) Somu @ Somasundaram vs. State & others
vi) 2005 Crl.LJ 3881 (Madras) Mukesh Jain vs. Balachandra
vii) 2005 Crl.LJ 1559 (Jharkhand) Sonali Mehta vs. State of Jharkhand
viii) 2008 Crl.LJ 1150 (Jharkhand) Gulam Kutbuddin vs. State of Jharkhand
6. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire petition papers.
7. On one side petitioner is a retired IAS officer and on the other side respondent is an IPS officer in service. Both the petitioner and respondent have held important positions in their service. It is seen from the record that petitioner and the respondent are engaged in writing letters against each other to the higher authorities. On earlier occasion the respondent 8 initiated proceedings in Crl.P.No.1627/2005 against the petitioner and four others on the file of this court for the offences punishable under Sections 193 r/w 120B, 34 and 21B of IPC. This court vide order dated 29.03.2010 dismissed the petition with costs of Rs.2000/- to each of the respondents therein. Thereafter, the respondent filed another complaint against the petitioner in C.C.No.4709/2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 IPC. Petitioner approached this court in Crl.P.No.2343/2008 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.4709/2008. This court vide order dated 20.02.2009 allowed Crl.P.No.2343/2008 and quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.4709/2008. Thereafter the respondent carried the matter to Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)5745/2009. Before the Supreme Court the counsel for the respondent made a submission and accordingly, the petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 19.03.2010 as under:
9
Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in order to maintain the cordial relations between the two senior officers involved, he would not like to press this petition. The same is dismissed accordingly.
In the meanwhile the present complaint is filed before the Magistrate. In this background it is necessary to examine the rival contentions in this case.
8. The word `defamation' is defined under Section 499 IPC and the same reads as under:
"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."10
A reading of the above definition manifestly makes it clear that the following essentials are necessary to constitute defamation.
i. making or publishing any imputation concerning any person;
ii. such imputation must have been made by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visual representations;
iii. the said imputation must have been made with an intention to harm or with knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned.
From the above it is clear that there must be false statement made without lawful justification. The intention to cause harm is the most essential 'sine qua non' to constitute an offence. Further the person against whom the allegations are 11 made must have a reputation and that a damage is caused to it on account of false allegations.
9. In the instant case a reading of the averments made in the letter dated 09.02.2007 do not constitute defamation. Even if the entire remarks made in the letter are taken as true, the same are not made with an intention to cause harm to the reputation of the respondent; they are not false and no damage is caused to the reputation of respondent. From the averments made in the complaint it is seen that the respondent has read too much into the averments made in the letter. The petitioner imagined for himself something which is not contained in the letter. Therefore the petition filed by the respondent is nothing but abuse of process of law.
10. The character of a person is what a person actually is, while reputation is what neighbours and others say what he is. Section 499 IPC specifies damage to the reputation of a person. A reading of the averments made in the complaint do not specify 12 what is the reputation of the petitioner in the estimation of his neighbours and others. Further the complaint do not specify as to how the reputation of the respondent is damaged in the estimation of others. Therefore the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
11. Petitioner admits the letter dated 09.02.2007. A perusal of this letter specifies that it was confidential letter and addressed only to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka. It is the specific case of respondent that copies of this letter was sent to different persons and the respondent had to spend lot of time and energy to explain the real facts and truth to his colleagues and friends who questioned the respondent on the basis of false imputations published by the petitioner. These allegations in the complaint are vague, not clear, definite and specific. In support of this contention no material is placed on record.
13
12. Petitioner in his complaint filed under Section 200 CRPC cited one Rajashekar as the witness and he was not examined before the Magistrate. On the other hand, another IPS officer by name Kishore Chandra was examined before the Magistrate whose name was not cited as witness in the complaint. This witness Kishore Chandra states that he has received the copy of letter dated 9.2.2007 through office channel. But this witness has not produced copy of the letter which he received nor the inward register from his office showing that he has received such letter through the office channel. There is no other evidence on record nor pleading to show that the letter dated 09.02.2007 was circulated among the colleagues of respondent and others. There is no pleading as to what is the reputation of petitioner and how it is damaged.
For the reasons stated above, the following order :
i) The petition is hereby allowed.
14
ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.27030/2011 pending on
the file of the ACMM, Bangalore are hereby quashed.
iii) Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
DKB/LRS.